From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To: "Michael Kelley \(EOSG\)" <Michael.H.Kelley@microsoft.com>
Cc: "mhkelley58\@gmail.com" <mhkelley58@gmail.com>,
"gregkh\@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"devel\@linuxdriverproject.org" <devel@linuxdriverproject.org>,
"olaf\@aepfle.de" <olaf@aepfle.de>,
"apw\@canonical.com" <apw@canonical.com>,
"jasowang\@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
"marcelo.cerri\@canonical.com" <marcelo.cerri@canonical.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH char-misc 1/1] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Make synic_initialized flag per-cpu
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 11:26:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8736vyo2tm.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR21MB0773EFCF6EA21CF8F9CE01E0DC2D0@CY4PR21MB0773.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> (Michael Kelley's message of "Wed, 1 Aug 2018 05:47:08 +0000")
"Michael Kelley (EOSG)" <Michael.H.Kelley@microsoft.com> writes:
> From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 4:20 AM
>>
>> Alternatively, we can get rid of synic_initialized flag altogether:
>> hv_synic_init() never fails in the first place but we can always
>> implement something like:
>>
>> int hv_synic_is_initialized(void) {
>> union hv_synic_scontrol sctrl;
>>
>> hv_get_synic_state(sctrl.as_uint64);
>>
>> return sctrl.enable;
>> }
>>
>> as it doesn't seem that we need to check synic state on _other_ CPUs.
>>
>
> I was trying to decide if there are any arguments in favor of one
> approach vs. the other: a per-cpu flag in memory or checking
> the synic_control "enable" bit. Seems like a wash to me, in which
> case I have a slight preference for the per-cpu flag in memory vs.
> creating another function to return sctrl.enable. But I'm completely
> open to reasons why checking sctrl.enable is better.
Just a few thoughts: reading MSR is definitely slower but we avoid
'shadowing' the state, the reading is always correct. In case there's a
chance the SynIC will get disabled from host side we can only find this
out by doing MSR read. This is a purely theoretical possibility, I
believe, we can go ahead with this patch.
--
Vitaly
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-01 9:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-31 2:34 [PATCH char-misc 1/1] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Make synic_initialized flag per-cpu mhkelley58
2018-07-31 11:19 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2018-08-01 5:47 ` Michael Kelley (EOSG)
2018-08-01 9:26 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov [this message]
2018-08-28 20:20 ` Michael Kelley (EOSG)
2018-08-28 20:59 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
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=8736vyo2tm.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com \
--to=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=Michael.H.Kelley@microsoft.com \
--cc=apw@canonical.com \
--cc=devel@linuxdriverproject.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=kys@microsoft.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcelo.cerri@canonical.com \
--cc=mhkelley58@gmail.com \
--cc=olaf@aepfle.de \
--cc=sthemmin@microsoft.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