On 03/07/2015 14:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 01:12:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> In fact you shouldn't have just tested the patch on a case _without_
>> preemption notifiers, you should have also benchmarked the impact that
>> static keys have _with_ preemption notifiers. In a
>> not-really-artificial case (one single-processor guest running on the
>> host), the static key patch adds a static_key_slow_inc on a relatively
>> hot path for KVM, which is not acceptable.
>
> Spawning the first vcpu is a hot path?
This is not *spawning* the first VCPU. Basically any critical section
for vcpu->mutex includes a preempt_notifier_register/unregister pair:
/*
* Switches to specified vcpu, until a matching vcpu_put()
*/
int vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
int cpu;
if (mutex_lock_killable(&vcpu->mutex))
return -EINTR;
cpu = get_cpu();
preempt_notifier_register(&vcpu->preempt_notifier);
kvm_arch_vcpu_load(vcpu, cpu);
put_cpu();
return 0;
}
void vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
preempt_disable();
kvm_arch_vcpu_put(vcpu);
preempt_notifier_unregister(&vcpu->preempt_notifier);
preempt_enable();
mutex_unlock(&vcpu->mutex);
}
So basically you're adding at least one static_key_slow_inc/dec pair to
every userspace exit.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
