From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 2/3] s390/kvm: Platform specific
 kvm_arch_vcpu_dont_yield
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:22:05 +0100
Message-ID: <20140224152205.0e1be9f6@bee>
References: <1392119132-50182-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
	<1392119132-50182-3-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
	<52FD4913.3000107@redhat.com>
	<52FD4D17.10307@de.ibm.com>
	<52FD5608.2050808@redhat.com>
	<52FDE813.5050809@de.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <52FDE813.5050809@de.ibm.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Archive: <https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/>
List-Post: <mailto:kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>, Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>, Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
List-ID: <linux-s390.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:55:31 +0100
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 14/02/14 00:32, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 13/02/2014 23:54, Christian Borntraeger ha scritto:
> >> We had several variants but in the end we tried to come up with a patch that does not
> >> influence other architectures. Your proposal would certainly be fine for s390,
> >> but what impact does it have on x86, arm, arm64? Will it cause performance regressions?
> > 
> > It may also have the same advantages you got on s390.
> > 
> >> So I think that the patch as is is probably the safest choice until we have some
> >> data from x86, arm, arm64, no?
> > 
> > No, using an existing API is always better than inventing a new one.
> 
> OK. 
> Michael can you rework the series to simply use 
> " if (waitqueue_active(&vcpu->wq) && !kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(vcpu)" in kvm_vcpu_on_spin
> 
> and make kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable  kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) in s390 code?
> That should be equivalent for s390 with even simpler code.
> It might also help x86 and others.

Ok, I will adapt the patch accordingly...

> 
> 
> > If you post the new patch series, and describe the benchmark you were using, we can reproduce
> > it on x86.
> 
> The benchmark was some workload doing lots of semaphore up/down with hundreds
> of processes. Will see if I can come up with a minimal test.
> 
> 
> 
>