From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: x86: disable KVM_FAST_MMIO_BUS
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:00:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2e42e64c-f31d-5ccd-2357-1a859cec5b5b@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170817011815-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
On 17/08/2017 00:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:25:35PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Yes, I agree. EMULTYPE_SKIP is fine because failed decoding still
>> causes an exception to be injected. Maybe it's better to gate the
>> EMULTYPE_SKIP emulation on the exit qualification saying this is a write
>
> I thought it's already limited to writes. I agree that's a reasonable
> limitation in any case.
>
>> and also not a page table walk---just in case.
>
> I still don't get it, sorry. Let's assume for the sake of argument
> that it's a PT walk causing the MMIO access. Just why do you think
> that it makes sense to skip the instruction that caused the walk?
I think it doesn't. I think in that case it's better to skip the fast
write and proceed with full emulation.
>>> It's just that this has been there for 3 years and people have built a
>>> product around this.
>>
>> Around 700 clock cycles?
>
> About 30% the cost of exit, isn't it? There are definitely workloads
> where cost of exit gates performance. We didn't work on fast mmio based
> on theoretical assumptions. But maybe I am wrong. We'll see. Jason here
> volunteered to test your patch and we'll see what comes out of it. If
> I'm wrong and it's about 1%, I won't split hairs.
Note that we still get the latency benefit from fast MMIO, and maybe we
can cut a couple hundred clock cycles more---which would benefit all
emulation, not just fast MMIO.
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-17 9:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-16 11:22 Paolo Bonzini
2017-08-16 12:07 ` Radim Krčmář
2017-08-16 13:37 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-08-16 14:06 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-08-16 14:17 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-08-17 8:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2017-08-16 12:58 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-08-16 13:05 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-08-16 13:16 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-08-16 13:30 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-08-16 14:03 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-08-16 16:50 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-08-16 17:19 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-08-16 19:03 ` Radim Krčmář
2017-08-16 19:59 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-08-16 21:25 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-08-16 22:31 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-08-17 9:00 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2017-08-17 12:14 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-08-17 13:23 ` Radim Krčmář
2017-08-17 15:15 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-08-17 13:51 ` Radim Krčmář
2017-08-17 15:27 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-08-16 19:47 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
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=2e42e64c-f31d-5ccd-2357-1a859cec5b5b@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@vger.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®