[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <15F4973A-9D7E-46B9-97B9-A431A756C272@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:29:32 -0700
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
"Gabriel L. Somlo" <gsomlo@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 untested] kvm: better MWAIT emulation for guests
> On Mar 21, 2017, at 9:58 AM, Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com> wrote:
> In '-smp 2', the writing VCPU always does 10000 wakeups by writing into
> monitored memory, but the mwaiting VCPU can be also woken up by host
> interrupts, which might add a few exits depending on timing.
>
> I didn't spend much time in making the PASS/FAIL mean much, or ensuring
> that we only get 10000 wakeups ... it is nothing to be worried about.
>
> Hint 240 behaves as nop even on my system, so I still don't find
> anything insane on that machine (if OS X is exluded) ...
From my days in Intel (10 years ago), I can say that MWAIT wakes for many
microarchitecural events beside interrupts.
Out of curiosity, aren’t you worried that on OS X the wbinvd causes an exit
after the monitor and before the mwait?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists