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
next prev parent 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).