From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
To: tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bp@alien8.de,
peterz@infradead.org, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com,
dave.hansen@intel.com, arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com
Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/4] KVM: x86: Reduce retpoline performance impact in slot_handle_level_range()
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 00:03:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1517961794-14972-3-git-send-email-dwmw@amazon.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1517961794-14972-1-git-send-email-dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
With retpoline, tight loops of "call this function for every XXX" are
very much pessimised by taking a prediction miss *every* time. This one
showed up very high in our early testing.
By marking the iterator slot_handle_…() functions always_inline, we can
ensure that the indirect function call can be optimised away into a
direct call and it actually generates slightly smaller code because
some of the other conditionals can get optimised away too.
Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
---
arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
index 2b8eb4d..cc83bdc 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
@@ -5058,7 +5058,7 @@ void kvm_mmu_uninit_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
typedef bool (*slot_level_handler) (struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_rmap_head *rmap_head);
/* The caller should hold mmu-lock before calling this function. */
-static bool
+static __always_inline bool
slot_handle_level_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
slot_level_handler fn, int start_level, int end_level,
gfn_t start_gfn, gfn_t end_gfn, bool lock_flush_tlb)
@@ -5088,7 +5088,7 @@ slot_handle_level_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
return flush;
}
-static bool
+static __always_inline bool
slot_handle_level(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
slot_level_handler fn, int start_level, int end_level,
bool lock_flush_tlb)
@@ -5099,7 +5099,7 @@ slot_handle_level(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
lock_flush_tlb);
}
-static bool
+static __always_inline bool
slot_handle_all_level(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
slot_level_handler fn, bool lock_flush_tlb)
{
@@ -5107,7 +5107,7 @@ slot_handle_all_level(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
PT_MAX_HUGEPAGE_LEVEL, lock_flush_tlb);
}
-static bool
+static __always_inline bool
slot_handle_large_level(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
slot_level_handler fn, bool lock_flush_tlb)
{
@@ -5115,7 +5115,7 @@ slot_handle_large_level(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
PT_MAX_HUGEPAGE_LEVEL, lock_flush_tlb);
}
-static bool
+static __always_inline bool
slot_handle_leaf(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
slot_level_handler fn, bool lock_flush_tlb)
{
--
2.7.4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-07 0:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-07 0:03 [RFC PATCH 0/4] Retpoline / IBRS_ALL David Woodhouse
2018-02-07 0:03 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] Revert "x86/speculation: Simplify indirect_branch_prediction_barrier()" David Woodhouse
2018-02-07 0:03 ` David Woodhouse [this message]
[not found] ` <1518092274.3677.177.camel@infradead.org>
2018-02-08 12:28 ` [Fwd: [RFC PATCH 2/4] KVM: x86: Reduce retpoline performance impact in slot_handle_level_range()] Sironi, Filippo
2018-02-07 0:03 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] x86/speculation: Use IBRS if available before calling into firmware David Woodhouse
2018-02-07 11:17 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-02-07 11:29 ` David Woodhouse
2018-02-07 0:03 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] x86/speculation: Support "Enhanced IBRS" on future CPUs David Woodhouse
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1517961794-14972-3-git-send-email-dwmw@amazon.co.uk \
--to=dwmw@amazon.co.uk \
--cc=arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®