[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <865xpa3fwe.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 18:47:29 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org,
syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: arm64: Get rid of userspace_irqchip_in_use
On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:06:09 +0000,
Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 9:27 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 23:45:33 +0000,
> > Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > Did you have a chance to check whether this had any negative impact on
> > actual workloads? Since the entry/exit code is a bit of a hot spot,
> > I'd like to make sure we're not penalising the common case (I only
> > wrote this patch while waiting in an airport, and didn't test it at
> > all).
> >
> I ran the kvm selftests, kvm-unit-tests and booted a linux guest to
> test the change and noticed no failures.
> Any specific test you want to try out?
My question is not about failures (I didn't expect any), but
specifically about *performance*, and whether checking the flag
without a static key can lead to any performance drop on the hot path.
Can you please run an exit-heavy workload (such as hackbench, for
example), and report any significant delta you could measure?
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists