Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Revert "add load inst fixup"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 05/06/2014 05:48 PM, mihai.caraman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 1:14 AM
To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
Cc: kvm-ppc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxppc-
dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Revert "add load inst
fixup"



Am 03.05.2014 um 01:14 schrieb "mihai.caraman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<mihai.caraman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

From: Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 12:24 PM
This was the first idea that sprang to my mind inspired from how DO_KVM
is hooked on PR. I actually did a simple POC for e500mc/e5500, but this
will
not work on e6500 which has shared IVORs between HW threads.
What if we combine the ideas? On read we flip the IVOR to a separate
handler that checks for a field in the PACA. Only if that field is set,
we treat the fault as kvm fault, otherwise we jump into the normal
handler.

I suppose we'd have to also take a lock to make sure we don't race with
the other thread when it wants to also read a guest instruction, but you
get the idea.
This might be a solution for TLB eviction but not for execute-but-not-read
entries which requires access from host context.

Good point :).


I have no idea whether this would be any faster, it's more of a
brainstorming thing really. But regardless this patch set would be a move
into the right direction.

Btw, do we have any guarantees that we don't get scheduled away before we
run kvmppc_get_last_inst()? If we run on a different core we can't read
the inst anymore. Hrm.
It was your suggestion to move the logic from kvmppc_handle_exit() irq
disabled area to kvmppc_get_last_inst():

http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/ppc/sdk/linux.git/tree/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c

Still, what is wrong if we get scheduled on another core? We will emulate
again and the guest will populate the TLB on the new core.

Yes, it means we have to get the EMULATE_AGAIN code paths correct :). It also means we lose some performance with preemptive kernel configurations.


Alex

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [Linux Virtualization]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Video]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Big List of Linux Books]

  Powered by Linux