[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150417105506.GF5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:55:06 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gleb@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, mtosatti@...hat.com,
luto@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] First batch of KVM changes for 4.1
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:38:07PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 17/04/2015 12:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Now you make everybody pay for your crap, x86-64 paravirt or not. Keep
> > the cost by those who need it.
> >
> > Please take it out, ASAP.
>
> I'll just implement the static key.
Can you first show that:
preempt_out:
int cpu = smp_processor_id();
if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
vcpu->cpu = cpu;
preempt_in:
int cpu = smp_processor_id();
if (unlikely(vcpu->cpu != cpu))
do_vcpu_migration_callback(cpu);
Is actually a measurable performance hit and we actually _need_ the
migration callback?
Also, it looks like you already do exactly this for other things, look
at:
kvm_sched_in()
kvm_arch_vcpu_load()
if (unlikely(vcpu->cpu != cpu) ... )
So no, I don't believe for one second you need this.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists