lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 1/2] kvm vcpu: Note down pause loop exit
On 07/11/2012 02:23 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 09:20 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T<raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>> Noting pause loop exited vcpu helps in filtering right candidate to yield.
>> Yielding to same vcpu may result in more wastage of cpu.
>>
>>
>> struct kvm_lpage_info {
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
>> index f75af40..a492f5d 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
>> @@ -3264,6 +3264,7 @@ static int interrupt_window_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
>>
>> static int pause_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
>> {
>> + svm->vcpu.arch.plo.pause_loop_exited = true;
>> kvm_vcpu_on_spin(&(svm->vcpu));
>> return 1;
>> }
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> index 32eb588..600fb3c 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> @@ -4945,6 +4945,7 @@ out:
>> static int handle_pause(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> {
>> skip_emulated_instruction(vcpu);
>> + vcpu->arch.plo.pause_loop_exited = true;
>> kvm_vcpu_on_spin(vcpu);
>>
>
> This code is duplicated. Should we move it to kvm_vcpu_on_spin?
>
> That means the .plo structure needs to be in common code, but that's not
> too bad perhaps.
>

Since PLE is very much tied to x86, and proposed changes are very much
specific to PLE handler, I thought it is better to make arch specific.

So do you think it is good to move inside vcpu_on_spin and make ple
structure belong to common code?

>> index be6d549..07dbd14 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> @@ -5331,7 +5331,7 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>
>> if (req_immediate_exit)
>> smp_send_reschedule(vcpu->cpu);
>> -
>> + vcpu->arch.plo.pause_loop_exited = false;
>
> This adds some tiny overhead to vcpu entry. You could remove it by
> using the vcpu->requests mechanism to clear the flag, since
> vcpu->requests is already checked on every entry.

So IIUC, let's have request bit for indicating PLE,

pause_interception() /handle_pause()
{
make_request(PLE_REQUEST)
vcpu_on_spin()

}

check_eligibility()
{
!test_request(PLE_REQUEST) || ( test_request(PLE_REQUEST) &&
dy_eligible())
.
.
}

vcpu_run()
{

check_request(PLE_REQUEST)
.
.
}

Is this is the expected flow you had in mind?

[ But my only concern was not resetting for cases where we do not do
guest_enter(). will test how that goes].

>
>> kvm_guest_enter();
>>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-11 13:41    [W:0.145 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site