On 19/08/14 16:23, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 19/08/14 14:14, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> Il 19/08/2014 13:28, David Hildenbrand ha scritto: >>>>> Looking at the code, kvm_cpu_synchronize_state() seems to do these ioctls >>>>> in >>>>> the vcpu thread (e.g. comming from cpu_synchronize_all_states()), any >>>>> reasons >>>>> why kvm_cpu_synchronize_post_reset() doesn't do the same (e.g. called from >>>>> cpu_synchronize_all_post_reset())? >>>> >>>> No reason, feel free to post a patch for QEMU kvm-all.c. >>>> Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt clearly says: >>>> >>>> Only run vcpu ioctls from the same thread that was used to create the >>>> vcpu. >>>> >>>> Paolo >>>> >>> >>> Thanks! A little more tweaking in the other parts of s390x resets >>> and we should be able to reduce the number of "wrong" ioctls (I think I >>> found >>> most cases that are responsible for the performance degradation). >> >> Hmm. We want to not only reduce, we want them be zero. >> In addition to a reworked MP_STATE patch set, we might be able to change the >> code to call "KVM_S390_INITIAL_RESET" only from the cpu thread itself. >> If that simplifies things, we could avoid doing KVM_S390_INITIAL_RESET on >> CPU creation, because we know that all kernel version will do an implicit >> cpu reset on cpu creation anyway. Can you have a try on this as well when >> reworking that code? We could then fix this rcu performance penalty >> independent from getting rid of that ioctl. >> >> Christian >> > > Already working on it, only one ioctl left on vcpu creation that is called > from wrong context, trying to hide from me. Restarts and resets are already
Maybe its the synchronize when the oldpid is 0? Can you check the patch that I just sent? > blasting fast. > > David > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
