[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86a5j1ilqg.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 09:01:59 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Nianyao Tang <tangnianyao@...wei.com>
Cc: <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<guoyang2@...wei.com>,
<wangwudi@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [RESPIN PATCH] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Use local 4_1 ITS to generate VSGI
Please don't use "RESPIN" as a subject tag. This means nothing, and
confuses the tooling such as b4, which expects a version number.
If the code has changed in any way, increment the version number. This
really should have been a v2.
On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 07:20:42 +0100,
Nianyao Tang <tangnianyao@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> On multi-node GICv4.1 system, VSGI senders always use one certain 4_1 ITS,
> because find_4_1_its return the first its_node in list, regardless of
> which node the VSGI sender is on. This brings guest vsgi performance drop
> when VM is not deployed on the same node as this returned ITS.
s/deployed/running/
>
> On a 2-socket environment, each with one ITS and 32 cpu, GICv4.1 enabled,
> 4U8G guest, 4 vcpu is deployed on same socket.
s/deployed/running/
> When VM on socket0, kvm-unit-tests ipi_hw result is 850ns.
> When VM on socket1, it is 750ns. The reason is VSGI sender always
> use lasted reported ITS(that on socket1) to inject VSGI. The access
s/lasted/the last/
> from cpu to other-socket ITS will cost 100ns more compared to cpu to
> local ITS.
>
> To use local ITS, we can get 12% reduction in IPI latency.
s/To use/By using a/
>
> The patch modify find_4_1_its to firstly return per-cpu local_4_1_its,
Drop "the patch".
s/firstly/first/
> which is init when inherit the VPE table from the ITS on secondary CPUs.
or from another CPU.
> If fail to find local 4_1 ITS, return any 4_1 ITS like before.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nianyao Tang <tangnianyao@...wei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
No. I never gave this tag. You can (and probably should) add a
"Suggested-by:" tag, but not a "Reviewed-by:", until I explicitly
reply to the patch with that tag.
Please resend it as a v3 with all of the above fixed.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists