qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Alex Züpke" <alexander.zuepke@hs-rm.de>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU ARM SMP: IPI delivery delayed until next main loop event // how to improve IPI latency?
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:05:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <557EE9B3.1030606@hs-rm.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA_W6KtcnEAb+K_wcqXn8QZs968ziNEF2c+qqP-YAKqeYw@mail.gmail.com>

Am 15.06.2015 um 16:51 schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 15 June 2015 at 15:44, Alex Züpke <alexander.zuepke@hs-rm.de> wrote:
>> Am 12.06.2015 um 20:03 schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>> Probably the best approach would be to have something in
>>> arm_cpu_set_irq() which says "if we are CPU X and we've
>>> just caused an interrupt to be set for CPU Y, then we
>>> should ourselves yield back to the main loop".
>>>
>>> Something like this, maybe, though I have done no more testing
>>> than checking it doesn't actively break kernel booting :-)
>>
>>
>> Thanks! One more check for "level" is needed to get it work:
> 
> What happens without that? It's reasonable to have it,
> but extra cpu_exit()s shouldn't cause a problem beyond
> being a bit inefficient...

The emulation get's stuck, for whatever reason I don't understand.
I checked if something similar is done on other architectures and found 
that the level check is missing, see for example cpu_request_exit() in hw/ppc/prep.c:
  static void cpu_request_exit(void *opaque, int irq, int level)
  {
      CPUState *cpu = current_cpu;

      if (cpu && level) {
          cpu_exit(cpu);
      }
  }

But probably this is used for something completely unrelated.

> It would be interesting to know if this helps Linux as well
> as your custom OS. (I don't know whether a "CPU #0 polls"
> approach is bad on hardware too; the other option would be
> to have CPU #1 IPI back in the other direction if 0 needed
> to wait for a response.)
> 
> -- PMM

IIRC, Linux TLB shootdown on x86 once used such a scheme, but I don't know if they changed it.

I'd say that an IPI+poll pattern is used quite often in the tricky parts of a kernel, like kernel debugging.



Here's a simple IPI tester sending IPIs from CPU #0 to CPU #1 in an endless loop.
The IPIs are delayed until the timer interrupt triggers the main loop.

http://www.cs.hs-rm.de/~zuepke/qemu/ipi.elf
3174 bytes, md5sum 8d73890a60cd9b24a4f9139509b580e2

Run testcase:
$ qemu-system-arm -M vexpress-a15 -smp 2 -kernel ipi.elf -nographic

The testcase prints the following on the serial console without the patch:

  +------- CPU 0 came up
  |+------ CPU 0 initialization completed
  || +---- CPU 0 timer interrupt, 1 HZ
  || |
  vv v
  0!1T.T.T.T.T.T.T.
    ^ ^
    | |
    | +-- CPU 1 received an IPI
    +---- CPU 1 came up


Expected testcase output with patch:

  0!1T..............<hundreds of dots>.................T...............

So: more dots == more IPIs handled between two timer interrupts "T" ...



Best regards
Alex

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-15 15:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-12 16:38 [Qemu-devel] QEMU ARM SMP: IPI delivery delayed until next main loop event // how to improve IPI latency? Alex Züpke
2015-06-12 18:03 ` Peter Maydell
2015-06-15 14:44   ` Alex Züpke
2015-06-15 14:51     ` Peter Maydell
2015-06-15 15:05       ` Alex Züpke [this message]
2015-06-15 18:41         ` Peter Maydell
2015-06-15 18:58         ` Peter Maydell
2015-06-15 20:03           ` Alex Zuepke
2015-06-16 10:33             ` Peter Maydell
2015-06-16 10:59               ` Peter Maydell
2015-06-16 11:11                 ` Alex Züpke
2015-06-16 11:53                   ` Peter Maydell
2015-06-16 12:21                     ` Alex Züpke
2015-06-19 15:53                     ` Peter Maydell
2015-06-23  7:31                       ` Frederic Konrad
2015-06-23  8:09                         ` Peter Maydell
2015-06-23  8:33                           ` Frederic Konrad
2015-06-23 18:15                         ` Peter Maydell
2015-06-25 17:13                           ` Peter Maydell
2015-06-15 15:04 ` Peter Maydell
2015-06-15 15:07   ` Alex Züpke
2015-06-15 15:18     ` Peter Maydell
2015-06-15 15:36       ` Alex Züpke
2015-06-15 15:49         ` Peter Maydell
2015-06-15 16:12           ` Alex Züpke
2015-06-15 21:39           ` Peter Crosthwaite
2015-06-19 16:57 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-06-19 17:25   ` Peter Maydell

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=557EE9B3.1030606@hs-rm.de \
    --to=alexander.zuepke@hs-rm.de \
    --cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).