Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages

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

 



On 24.07.2013, at 12:01, Gleb Natapov wrote:

> Copying Andrea for him to verify that I am not talking nonsense :)
> 
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:25:20AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>> index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644
>>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>> @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true;
>>> 
>>> bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn)
>>> {
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
>> 
>> I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500.
>> 
>>> +       /*
>>> +        * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this.
>>> +        */
>>>       if (pfn_valid(pfn)) {
>> 
>> We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here.
>> 
>>>               int reserved;
>>>               struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn);
>>> @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn)
>>>               }
>>>               return PageReserved(tail);
>>>       }
>>> +#endif
>>> 
>>>       return true;
>>> }
>>> 
>>> Before apply this change:
>>> 
>>> real    (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s
>>> user    (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s
>>> sys	(0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s
>>> 
>>> After apply this change:
>>> 
>>> real    (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s
>>> user    (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s
>>> sys	(0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s
>>> 
>>> So,
>>> 
>>> real    (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6%
>>> user    (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5%
>>> sys	(0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7%
>> 
>> Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead.
>> 
>> Gleb, Paolo, any hard feelings?
>> 
> I do not see how can we break the function in such a way and get
> away with it. Not all valid pfns point to memory. Physical address can
> be sparse (due to PCI hole, framebuffer or just because).

But we don't check for sparseness today in here either. We merely check for incomplete huge pages.


Alex

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




[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