[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0086ef77-ce5f-3e89-0cbd-b17d4dccaacf@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 18:38:54 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86/mmu: Don't step down in the TDP iterator
when zapping all SPTEs
On 13/08/21 18:13, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 12/08/21 19:46, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>>>> if (iter->level == iter->min_level)
>>>>> return false;
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * Reread the SPTE before stepping down to avoid traversing into page
>>>>> * tables that are no longer linked from this entry.
>>>>> */
>>>>> iter->old_spte = READ_ONCE(*rcu_dereference(iter->sptep)); \
>>>>> ---> this is the code that is avoided
>>>>> child_pt = spte_to_child_pt(iter->old_spte, iter->level); /
>>>>> if (!child_pt)
>>>>> return false;
>>>> Ah, right - so I agree with Ben that it's not too important.
>>> Ya. There is a measurable performance improvement, but it's really only
>>> meaningful when there aren't many SPTEs to zap, otherwise the cost of zapping
>>> completely dominates the time.
>>
>> I don't understand. When try_step_down is called by tdp_iter_next, all it
>> does is really just the READ_ONCE, because spte_to_child_pt will see a
>> non-present PTE and return immediately. Why do two, presumably cache hot,
>> reads cause a measurable performance improvement?
>
> It's entirely possible my measurements were bad and/or noisy. Ah, and my kernel
> was running with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y, which makes the rcu_dereference() quite a bit
> more expensive.
It's one line of code and it makes sense, so I can certainly include the
patch. I was just a bit confused.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists