Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler

[Raghavendra K T]

On 07/12/2012 01:41 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/12/2012 08:11 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > > Ah, I thouht you objected to the CONFIG var.  Maybe call it
> > > cpu_relax_intercepted since that's the linuxy name for the instruction.
> >
> > Ok, just to be on same page. 'll have :
> > 1. cpu_relax_intercepted instead of  pause_loop_exited.
> >
> > 2. CONFIG_KVM_HAVE_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT which is unconditionally
> > selected for x86 and s390
> >
> > 3. make request mechanism to clear cpu_relax_intercepted.
> >
> > ('ll do same thing for s390 also but have not seen s390 code using
> > request mechanism, so not sure if it ok.. otherwise we have to clear
> > unconditionally for s390 before guest enter and for x86 we have to move
> > make_request back to vmx/svm).
> > will post V3 with these changes.
>
> You can leave the s390 changes to the s390 people; just make sure the
> generic code is ready.
Yep,
Checked the following logic with make_request and it works fine,

vcpu_spin()
{
 ple_exited = true;
.
.
make_request(KVM_REQ_CLEAR_PLE, vcpu);
}

vcpu_enter_guest()
{
 if(check_request(KVM_REQ_CLEAR_PLE))
    ple_exited = false;
.
.
}

But there is following approach that is working perfectly fine.
vcpu_spin()
{
 ple_exited = true;
.
.

 ple_exited = false;
}

I hope to go with second approach. let me know if you find any loop
hole.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/