From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
To: "Alex Züpke" <alexander.zuepke@hs-rm.de>
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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:03:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFEAcA8iCmgwgmhTkRryTyVBSxS+Cbh6bGSLqt7EPM028F1tUg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <557B0B21.2030009@hs-rm.de>
On 12 June 2015 at 17:38, Alex Züpke <alexander.zuepke@hs-rm.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm benchmarking some IPI (== inter-processor-interrupt) synchronization stuff of my custom kernel on QEMU ARM (qemu-system-arm -M vexpress-a15 -smp 2) and ran into the following problem: pending IPIs are delayed until the QEMU main loop receives an event (for example the timer interrupt expires or I press a key on the console).
>
> The following timing diagram tries to show this:
>
> CPU #0 CPU #1
> ====== ======
> ... other stuff ... WFI (wait for interrupt, like x86 "HLT")
> send SGI in MPCore
> polls for completeness
> <time passes ...>
> polls ...
> <... and passes ...>
> still polls ...
> <... and passes ...>
> still polls ...
> <... and passes ...>
>
>
> <timer interrupt expires>
> <now QEMU switches to CPU #1>
> receives IPI
> signals completeness
> WFI
> <QEMU switches to CPU #0>
> polling done
> process timer interrupt
> ...
Right. The problem is that we don't have any way of telling
that CPU 0 is just sat busy waiting for CPU 1.
> It works as expects (I get thousands of IPIs per second now), but
> it does not "feel right", so is there a better way to improve the
> responsiveness of IPI handling in QEMU?
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 :-)
--- a/target-arm/cpu.c
+++ b/target-arm/cpu.c
@@ -325,6 +325,18 @@ static void arm_cpu_set_irq(void *opaque, int
irq, int level)
default:
hw_error("arm_cpu_set_irq: Bad interrupt line %d\n", irq);
}
+
+ /* If we are currently executing code for CPU X, and this
+ * CPU we've just triggered an interrupt on is CPU Y, then
+ * make CPU X yield control back to the main loop at the
+ * end of the TB it's currently executing.
+ * This avoids problems where the interrupt was an IPI
+ * and CPU X would otherwise sit busy looping for the rest
+ * of its timeslice because Y hasn't had a chance to run.
+ */
+ if (current_cpu && current_cpu != cs) {
+ cpu_exit(current_cpu);
+ }
}
static void arm_cpu_kvm_set_irq(void *opaque, int irq, int level)
-- PMM
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-12 18:04 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 [this message]
2015-06-15 14:44 ` Alex Züpke
2015-06-15 14:51 ` Peter Maydell
2015-06-15 15:05 ` Alex Züpke
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=CAFEAcA8iCmgwgmhTkRryTyVBSxS+Cbh6bGSLqt7EPM028F1tUg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=alexander.zuepke@hs-rm.de \
--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).