Re: [PATCH 1/1] X86: hyperv: Enable MSR based APIC access

[Ingo Molnar]

* K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> If the hypervisor supports MSR based access to the APIC registers
> (EOI, TPR and ICR), implement the MSR based access.
> 
> Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/hyperv.h |    5 +++
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c     |   69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/hyperv.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/hyperv.h
> index 90c458e..6ce69e0 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/hyperv.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/hyperv.h
> @@ -140,6 +140,11 @@
>   */
>  #define HV_X64_RELAXED_TIMING_RECOMMENDED	(1 << 5)
>  
> +/*
> + * Recommend using x2APIC MSRs.

So since we are trying to explain things, wouldn't this comment be 
more informative if it explained why we are trying to use the x2APIC 
facilities of Hyper-V?

I.e. what are the benefits of using the x2apic API towards the 
hypervisor?

> + */
> +#define HV_X64_X2APIC_MSRS_RECOMMENDED       (1 << 8)
> +
>  /* MSR used to identify the guest OS. */
>  #define HV_X64_MSR_GUEST_OS_ID			0x40000000
>  
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c
> index 939155f..dd2eb49 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c
> @@ -110,6 +110,55 @@ static struct clocksource hyperv_cs = {
>  	.flags		= CLOCK_SOURCE_IS_CONTINUOUS,
>  };
>  
> +static u64 ms_hv_apic_icr_read(void)
> +{
> +	u64 reg_val;
> +
> +	rdmsrl(HV_X64_MSR_ICR, reg_val);
> +	return reg_val;
> +}
> +
> +static void ms_hv_apic_icr_write(u32 low, u32 id)
> +{
> +	u64 reg_val;
> +
> +	reg_val = SET_APIC_DEST_FIELD(id);
> +	reg_val = (reg_val << 32);

Those parentheses are not needed.

> +	reg_val |= low;
> +
> +	wrmsrl(HV_X64_MSR_EOI, reg_val);
> +}
> +
> +static u32 ms_hv_apic_read(u32 reg)
> +{
> +	u64 reg_val;
> +
> +	switch (reg) {
> +	case APIC_EOI:
> +	case APIC_TASKPRI:
> +		rdmsrl(HV_X64_MSR_EOI, reg_val);
> +		return reg_val;

So wouldn't it be faster to use u32 for 'reg_val' and rdmsr() instead 
of u64 and rdmsrl()? This 64-bit read just throws away the high 32 
bits.

> +
> +	default:
> +		return native_apic_mem_read(reg);
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static void ms_hv_apic_write(u32 reg, u32 val)
> +{
> +	u64 reg_val;
> +
> +	reg_val =  val;
> +	switch (reg) {
> +	case APIC_EOI:
> +	case APIC_TASKPRI:
> +		wrmsrl(HV_X64_MSR_EOI, reg_val);
> +	default:
> +		native_apic_mem_write(reg, val);
> +	}
> +}

Same observation: it would be faster to use a 32-bit WRMSR.

> +
> +
>  static void __init ms_hyperv_init_platform(void)
>  {
>  	/*
> @@ -143,11 +192,31 @@ static void __init ms_hyperv_init_platform(void)
>  	no_timer_check = 1;
>  #endif
>  
> +	if (ms_hyperv.features & HV_X64_MSR_APIC_ACCESS_AVAILABLE) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Setup the hooks for optimized APIC read/write.
> +		 */
> +		apic->read = ms_hv_apic_read;
> +		apic->write = ms_hv_apic_write;
> +		apic->icr_write = ms_hv_apic_icr_write;
> +		apic->icr_read = ms_hv_apic_icr_read;
> +		apic->eoi_write = ms_hv_apic_write;

Please align the initialization vertically via tabs, like 
'x86_hyper_ms_hyperv' is initialized.

> +	}
> +
> +}
> +
> +static bool ms_hyperv_x2apic(void)
> +{
> +	if (ms_hyperv.hints & HV_X64_X2APIC_MSRS_RECOMMENDED)
> +		return true;
> +	else
> +		return false;
>  }

Isn't this shorter:

	return (ms_hyperv.hints & HV_X64_X2APIC_MSRS_RECOMMENDED) != 0;

?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/