Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi Vitaly, (fix my reply mess this time)
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 at 01:09, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> When reviewing my "x86/hyper-v: use cheaper HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_
>> {LIST,SPACE} hypercalls when possible" patch Michael suggested to apply the
>> same idea to PV IPIs. Here we go!
>>
>> Despite what Hyper-V TLFS says about HVCALL_SEND_IPI hypercall, it can
>> actually be 'fast' (passing parameters through registers). Use that too.
>>
>> This series can collide with my "KVM: x86: hyperv: PV IPI support for
>> Windows guests" series as I rename ipi_arg_non_ex/ipi_arg_ex structures
>> there. Depending on which one gets in first we may need to do tiny
>> adjustments.
>
> As hyperv PV TLB flush has already been merged, is there any other
> obvious multicast IPIs scenarios? qemu supports interrupt remapping
> since two years ago, I think windows guest can switch to cluster mode
> after entering x2APIC, so sending IPI per cluster. In addition, you
> can also post the benchmark result for this PV IPI optimization,
> although it also fixes the bug which you mentioned above.
I got confused, which of my patch series are you actually looking at?
:-)
This particular one ("x86/hyper-v: optimize PV IPIs") is not about
KVM/qemu, it is for Linux running on top on real Hyper-V server. We
already support PV IPIs and here I'm just trying to optimize the way how
we send them by switching to a cheaper hypercall (and using 'fast'
version of it) when possible. I don't actually have a good benchmark
(and I don't remember seeing one when K.Y. posted PV IPI support) but
this can be arranged I guess: I can write a dump 'IPI sender' in kernel
and send e.g. 1000 IPIs.
--
Vitaly
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
