linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] KVM: Yield to IPI target if necessary

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <153047ED-75E2-4E70-BC33-C5FF27C08638@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jun 2019 09:57:36 -0700
From:   Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] KVM: Yield to IPI target if necessary

> On Jun 11, 2019, at 3:02 AM, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 09:48, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 10, 2019, at 6:45 PM, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 09:11, Sean Christopherson
>>> <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 04:34:20PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>>>> 2019-05-30 09:05+0800, Wanpeng Li:
>>>>>> The idea is from Xen, when sending a call-function IPI-many to vCPUs,
>>>>>> yield if any of the IPI target vCPUs was preempted. 17% performance
>>>>>> increasement of ebizzy benchmark can be observed in an over-subscribe
>>>>>> environment. (w/ kvm-pv-tlb disabled, testing TLB flush call-function
>>>>>> IPI-many since call-function is not easy to be trigged by userspace
>>>>>> workload).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Have you checked if we could gain performance by having the yield as an
>>>>> extension to our PV IPI call?
>>>>> 
>>>>> It would allow us to skip the VM entry/exit overhead on the caller.
>>>>> (The benefit of that might be negligible and it also poses a
>>>>> complication when splitting the target mask into several PV IPI
>>>>> hypercalls.)
>>>> 
>>>> Tangetially related to splitting PV IPI hypercalls, are there any major
>>>> hurdles to supporting shorthand?  Not having to generate the mask for
>>>> ->send_IPI_allbutself and ->kvm_send_ipi_all seems like an easy to way
>>>> shave cycles for affected flows.
>>> 
>>> Not sure why shorthand is not used for native x2apic mode.
>> 
>> Why do you say so? native_send_call_func_ipi() checks if allbutself
>> shorthand should be used and does so (even though the check can be more
>> efficient - I’m looking at that code right now…)
> 
> Please continue to follow the apic/x2apic driver. Just apic_flat set
> APIC_DEST_ALLBUT/APIC_DEST_ALLINC to ICR.

Indeed - I was sure by the name that it does it correctly. That’s stupid.

I’ll add it to the patch-set I am working on (TLB shootdown improvements),
if you don’t mind.