From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@intel.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: make vmx_init a late init call to get to init process faster
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 16:20:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZhCHSYwS5_o-OKs0@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240323080541.10047-2-pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
On Sat, Mar 23, 2024, Paul Menzel wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@intel.com>
>
> Making vmx_init a late initcall improves QEMU kernel boot times to
> get to the init process. Average of 100 boots, QEMU boot average
> reduced from 0.776 seconds to 0.622 seconds (~19.8% faster) on
> Alder Lake i9-12900 and ~0.5% faster for non-QEMU UEFI boots.
The changelog needs to better explain what "QEMU kernel boot times" means. I
assume the test is a QEMU VM running a kernel KVM_INTEL built-in? This should
also call out that late_initcall is #defined to module_init() when KVM is built
as a module.
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@intel.com>
> [Take patch
> https://github.com/clearlinux-pkgs/linux/commit/797db35496031b19ba37b1639ac5fa5db9159a06
> and fix spelling of Alder Lake.]
> Signed-off-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> index c37a89eda90f..0a9f4b20fbda 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -8783,4 +8783,4 @@ static int __init vmx_init(void)
> kvm_x86_vendor_exit();
> return r;
> }
> -module_init(vmx_init);
> +late_initcall(vmx_init);
_If_ we do this, then we should also give svm_init() and kvm_x86_init() the same
treatment. I see no reason for vmx_init() to be special.
I'm not opposed to this, but I also have zero idea if this could have a negative
impact userspace. E.g. what happens if some setup's init process expects /dev/kvm
to exist? Will this break that?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-05 23:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-23 8:05 [PATCH] KVM: VMX: make vmx_init a late init call to get to init process faster Paul Menzel
2024-03-23 8:14 ` Paul Menzel
2024-04-05 23:20 ` Sean Christopherson [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=ZhCHSYwS5_o-OKs0@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=colin.i.king@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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