Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: arm64: selftests: Introduce get_set_regs_perf test

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

 



Hi Reiji,

On 2022-02-19 04:50, Reiji Watanabe wrote:
Hi Marc,

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 1:12 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 04:52:10 +0000,
Oliver Upton <oupton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Would it make sense to test some opt-in capabilities that expose
> additional registers (PMU, SVE, etc.)?

I think this is important. System registers are usually saved/restored

Yes, I will fix the test to include registers for opt-in features
when supported.

in groups, and due to the way we walk the sysreg array, timings are
unlikely to be uniform. Getting a grip on that could help restructure
the walking if required (either per-group arrays, or maybe a tree
structure).

The biggest system register table that I know is sys_reg_descs[],
and KVM_SET_ONE_REG/KVM_GET_ONE_REG/emulation code already uses
binary search to find the target entry.  So, the search itself
isn't that bad.  The difference between the min and the max
latency of KVM_GET_ONE_REG for the registers is always around
200nsec on Ampere Altra machine as far as I checked.

Even if it is OK so far, it is bound to get worse over time, as
the architecture keeps adding all sort of things that we'll
eventually have to save/restore.

I see this test as a way to monitor this trend and work out when
we need to invest in something better.

Thanks,

        M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux