From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: dave@gnu.org
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: invalidate vpid for invlpg instruction
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:05:40 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50485954.50204@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1346882061.6304.17.camel@offbook>
On 09/06/2012 12:54 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 12:11 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 09/03/2012 02:27 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 14:37 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 06:10:48PM +0200, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> >> > For processors that support VPIDs we should invalidate the page table entry
>> >> > specified by the lineal address. For this purpose add support for individual
>> >> > address invalidations.
>> >>
>> >> Not necessary - a single context invalidation is performed through
>> >> KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH.
>> >
>> > Since vpid_sync_context() supports both single and all-context vpid
>> > invalidations, wouldn't it make sense to also add individual address
>> > ones as well, supporting further granularity?
>>
>> It might. Do you have benchmarks supporting this?
>>
>
> I ran two benchmarks: Java Dacapo[1] Sunflow (renders a set of images
> using ray tracing) and a vanilla 3.2 kernel build (with 1 job and -j8).
>
> The host configuration is an Intel i7-2635QM (4 cores + HT) with 4Gb RAM
> running Linus's latest and only running standard system daemons. For KVM
> I disabled EPT.
That's not very interesting. In all real machines, if you have VPID you
also have EPT. Intel are unlikely to produce a processor without EPT.
> The guest configuration is a 64bit 4 core 4Gb RAM, running Linux 3.2
> (debian) and only running the benchmark.
>
> All results represent the mean of 5 runs, with time(1).
The results are impressive, but lack real-world relevance.
Individual-address invalidation isn't very useful with EPT, since we let
the guest issue INVLPG itself and otherwise don't bother with guest page
tables.
Individual-address INVEPT would probably be more useful, but there is no
such instruction variant.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-06 8:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-31 16:10 [PATCH] KVM: VMX: invalidate vpid for invlpg instruction Davidlohr Bueso
2012-08-31 17:37 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-09-02 23:27 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2012-09-03 9:11 ` Avi Kivity
2012-09-05 21:54 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2012-09-06 8:05 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50485954.50204@redhat.com \
--to=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=dave@gnu.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox