On 2020-09-16 08:04, lushenming wrote:
Hi,Our team just discussed this issue again and consulted our GIC hardwaredesign team. They think the RD can afford busy waiting. So we still thinkmaybe 0 is better, at least for our hardware.In addition, if not 0, as I said before, in our measurement, it takes onlyhundreds of nanoseconds, or 1~2 microseconds, to finish parsing the VPTin most cases. So maybe 1 microseconds, or smaller, is more appropriate.Anyway, 10 microseconds is too much.But it has to be said that it does depend on the hardware implementation.
Exactly. And given that the only publicly available implementation is a software model, I am reluctant to change "performance" related things based on benchmarks that can't be verified and appears to me as a micro optimization.
Besides, I'm not sure where are the start and end point of the total scheduling latency of a vcpu you said, which includes many events. Is the parse time ofthe VPT not clear enough?
Measure the time it takes from kvm_vcpu_load() to the point where the vcpu
enters the guest. How much, in proportion, do these 1/2/10ms represent?Also, a better(?) course of action would maybe to consider whether we should
split the its_vpe_schedule() call into two distinct operations: one thatprograms the VPE to be resident, and another that poll the Dirty bit *much later* on the entry path, giving the GIC a chance to work in parallel with
the CPU on the entry path.
If your HW is a quick as you say it is, it would pretty much guarantee
a clear read of GICR_VPENDBASER without waiting.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

