From: Shunsuke Mie <mie@igel.co.jp> To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/9] vringh: unify the APIs for all accessors Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 13:10:15 +0900 [thread overview] Message-ID: <28b421af-838d-e70a-ec95-2f14f21e3a90@igel.co.jp> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20221228021354-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> On 2022/12/28 16:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 11:24:10AM +0900, Shunsuke Mie wrote: >> 2022年12月27日(火) 23:37 Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>: >>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 07:22:36PM +0900, Shunsuke Mie wrote: >>>> 2022年12月27日(火) 16:49 Shunsuke Mie <mie@igel.co.jp>: >>>>> 2022年12月27日(火) 16:04 Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>: >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 11:25:26AM +0900, Shunsuke Mie wrote: >>>>>>> Each vringh memory accessors that are for user, kern and iotlb has own >>>>>>> interfaces that calls common code. But some codes are duplicated and that >>>>>>> becomes loss extendability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Introduce a struct vringh_ops and provide a common APIs for all accessors. >>>>>>> It can bee easily extended vringh code for new memory accessor and >>>>>>> simplified a caller code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shunsuke Mie <mie@igel.co.jp> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> drivers/vhost/vringh.c | 667 +++++++++++------------------------------ >>>>>>> include/linux/vringh.h | 100 +++--- >>>>>>> 2 files changed, 225 insertions(+), 542 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vringh.c b/drivers/vhost/vringh.c >>>>>>> index aa3cd27d2384..ebfd3644a1a3 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/vhost/vringh.c >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vringh.c >>>>>>> @@ -35,15 +35,12 @@ static __printf(1,2) __cold void vringh_bad(const char *fmt, ...) >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /* Returns vring->num if empty, -ve on error. */ >>>>>>> -static inline int __vringh_get_head(const struct vringh *vrh, >>>>>>> - int (*getu16)(const struct vringh *vrh, >>>>>>> - u16 *val, const __virtio16 *p), >>>>>>> - u16 *last_avail_idx) >>>>>>> +static inline int __vringh_get_head(const struct vringh *vrh, u16 *last_avail_idx) >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> u16 avail_idx, i, head; >>>>>>> int err; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - err = getu16(vrh, &avail_idx, &vrh->vring.avail->idx); >>>>>>> + err = vrh->ops.getu16(vrh, &avail_idx, &vrh->vring.avail->idx); >>>>>>> if (err) { >>>>>>> vringh_bad("Failed to access avail idx at %p", >>>>>>> &vrh->vring.avail->idx); >>>>>> I like that this patch removes more lines of code than it adds. >>>>>> >>>>>> However one of the design points of vringh abstractions is that they were >>>>>> carefully written to be very low overhead. >>>>>> This is why we are passing function pointers to inline functions - >>>>>> compiler can optimize that out. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that introducing ops indirect functions calls here is going to break >>>>>> these assumptions and hurt performance. >>>>>> Unless compiler can somehow figure it out and optimize? >>>>>> I don't see how it's possible with ops pointer in memory >>>>>> but maybe I'm wrong. >>>>> I think your concern is correct. I have to understand the compiler >>>>> optimization and redesign this approach If it is needed. >>>>>> Was any effort taken to test effect of these patches on performance? >>>>> I just tested vringh_test and already faced little performance reduction. >>>>> I have to investigate that, as you said. >>>> I attempted to test with perf. I found that the performance of patched code >>>> is almost the same as the upstream one. However, I have to investigate way >>>> this patch leads to this result, also the profiling should be run on >>>> more powerful >>>> machines too. >>>> >>>> environment: >>>> $ grep 'model name' /proc/cpuinfo >>>> model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-7020U CPU @ 2.30GHz >>>> model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-7020U CPU @ 2.30GHz >>>> model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-7020U CPU @ 2.30GHz >>>> model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-7020U CPU @ 2.30GHz >>>> >>>> results: >>>> * for patched code >>>> Performance counter stats for 'nice -n -20 ./vringh_test_patched >>>> --parallel --eventidx --fast-vringh --indirect --virtio-1' (20 runs): >>>> >>>> 3,028.05 msec task-clock # 0.995 CPUs >>>> utilized ( +- 0.12% ) >>>> 78,150 context-switches # 25.691 K/sec >>>> ( +- 0.00% ) >>>> 5 cpu-migrations # 1.644 /sec >>>> ( +- 3.33% ) >>>> 190 page-faults # 62.461 /sec >>>> ( +- 0.41% ) >>>> 6,919,025,222 cycles # 2.275 GHz >>>> ( +- 0.13% ) >>>> 8,990,220,160 instructions # 1.29 insn per >>>> cycle ( +- 0.04% ) >>>> 1,788,326,786 branches # 587.899 M/sec >>>> ( +- 0.05% ) >>>> 4,557,398 branch-misses # 0.25% of all >>>> branches ( +- 0.43% ) >>>> >>>> 3.04359 +- 0.00378 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.12% ) >>>> >>>> * for upstream code >>>> Performance counter stats for 'nice -n -20 ./vringh_test_base >>>> --parallel --eventidx --fast-vringh --indirect --virtio-1' (10 runs): >>>> >>>> 3,058.41 msec task-clock # 0.999 CPUs >>>> utilized ( +- 0.14% ) >>>> 78,149 context-switches # 25.545 K/sec >>>> ( +- 0.00% ) >>>> 5 cpu-migrations # 1.634 /sec >>>> ( +- 2.67% ) >>>> 194 page-faults # 63.414 /sec >>>> ( +- 0.43% ) >>>> 6,988,713,963 cycles # 2.284 GHz >>>> ( +- 0.14% ) >>>> 8,512,533,269 instructions # 1.22 insn per >>>> cycle ( +- 0.04% ) >>>> 1,638,375,371 branches # 535.549 M/sec >>>> ( +- 0.05% ) >>>> 4,428,866 branch-misses # 0.27% of all >>>> branches ( +- 22.57% ) >>>> >>>> 3.06085 +- 0.00420 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.14% ) >>> >>> How you compiled it also matters. ATM we don't enable retpolines >>> and it did not matter since we didn't have indirect calls, >>> but we should. Didn't yet investigate how to do that for virtio tools. >> I think the retpolines certainly affect performance. Thank you for pointing >> it out. I'd like to start the investigation that how to apply the >> retpolines to the >> virtio tools. >>>>> Thank you for your comments. >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Shunsuke. > This isn't all that trivial if we want this at runtime. > But compile time is kind of easy. > See Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/spectre.rst Thank you for showing it. I followed the document and added options to CFLAGS to the tools Makefile. That is --- diff --git a/tools/virtio/Makefile b/tools/virtio/Makefile index 1b25cc7c64bb..7b7139d97d74 100644 --- a/tools/virtio/Makefile +++ b/tools/virtio/Makefile @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ test: virtio_test vringh_test virtio_test: virtio_ring.o virtio_test.o vringh_test: vringh_test.o vringh.o virtio_ring.o -CFLAGS += -g -O2 -Werror -Wno-maybe-uninitialized -Wall -I. -I../include/ -I ../../usr/include/ -Wno-pointer-sign -fno-strict-overflow -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -MMD -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -include ../../include/linux/kconfig.h +CFLAGS += -g -O2 -Werror -Wno-maybe-uninitialized -Wall -I. -I../include/ -I ../../usr/include/ -Wno-pointer-sign -fno-strict-overflow -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -MMD -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -include ../../include/linux/kconfig.h -mfunction-return=thunk -fcf-protection=none -mindirect-branch-register CFLAGS += -pthread LDFLAGS += -pthread vpath %.c ../../drivers/virtio ../../drivers/vhost --- And results of evaluation are following: - base with retpoline $ sudo perf stat --repeat 20 -- nice -n -20 ./vringh_test_retp_origin --parallel --eventidx --fast-vringh Using CPUS 0 and 3 Guest: notified 0, pinged 98040 Host: notified 98040, pinged 0 ... Performance counter stats for 'nice -n -20 ./vringh_test_retp_origin --parallel --eventidx --fast-vringh' (20 runs): 6,228.33 msec task-clock # 1.004 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.05% ) 196,110 context-switches # 31.616 K/sec ( +- 0.00% ) 6 cpu-migrations # 0.967 /sec ( +- 2.39% ) 205 page-faults # 33.049 /sec ( +- 0.46% ) 14,218,527,987 cycles # 2.292 GHz ( +- 0.05% ) 10,342,897,254 instructions # 0.73 insn per cycle ( +- 0.02% ) 2,310,572,989 branches # 372.500 M/sec ( +- 0.03% ) 178,273,068 branch-misses # 7.72% of all branches ( +- 0.04% ) 6.20406 +- 0.00308 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.05% ) - patched (unified APIs) with retpoline $ sudo perf stat --repeat 20 -- nice -n -20 ./vringh_test_retp_patched --parallel --eventidx --fast-vringh Using CPUS 0 and 3 Guest: notified 0, pinged 98040 Host: notified 98040, pinged 0 ... Performance counter stats for 'nice -n -20 ./vringh_test_retp_patched --parallel --eventidx --fast-vringh' (20 runs): 6,103.94 msec task-clock # 1.001 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.03% ) 196,125 context-switches # 32.165 K/sec ( +- 0.00% ) 7 cpu-migrations # 1.148 /sec ( +- 1.56% ) 196 page-faults # 32.144 /sec ( +- 0.41% ) 13,933,055,778 cycles # 2.285 GHz ( +- 0.03% ) 10,309,004,718 instructions # 0.74 insn per cycle ( +- 0.03% ) 2,368,447,519 branches # 388.425 M/sec ( +- 0.04% ) 211,364,886 branch-misses # 8.94% of all branches ( +- 0.05% ) 6.09888 +- 0.00155 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.03% ) As a result, at the patched code, the branch-misses was increased but elapsed time became faster than the based code. The number of page-faults was a little different. I'm suspicious of that the page-fault penalty leads the performance result. I think that a pattern of memory access for data is same with those, but for instruction is different. Actually a code size (.text segment) was a little smaller. 0x6a65 and 0x63f5. $ readelf -a ./vringh_test_retp_origin |grep .text -1 0000000000000008 0000000000000008 AX 0 0 8 [14] .text PROGBITS 0000000000001230 00001230 0000000000006a65 0000000000000000 AX 0 0 16 -- 02 .interp .note.gnu.build-id .note.ABI-tag .gnu.hash .dynsym .dynstr .gnu.version .gnu.version_r .rela.dyn .rela.plt 03 .init .plt .plt.got .text .fini 04 .rodata .eh_frame_hdr .eh_frame $ readelf -a ./vringh_test_retp_patched |grep .text -1 0000000000000008 0000000000000008 AX 0 0 8 [14] .text PROGBITS 0000000000001230 00001230 00000000000063f5 0000000000000000 AX 0 0 16 -- 02 .interp .note.gnu.build-id .note.ABI-tag .gnu.hash .dynsym .dynstr .gnu.version .gnu.version_r .rela.dyn .rela.plt 03 .init .plt .plt.got .text .fini 04 .rodata .eh_frame_hdr .eh_frame I'll keep this investigation. I was wondering if you could comment me. Best >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Shunsuke Mie <mie@igel.co.jp> To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/9] vringh: unify the APIs for all accessors Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 13:10:15 +0900 [thread overview] Message-ID: <28b421af-838d-e70a-ec95-2f14f21e3a90@igel.co.jp> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20221228021354-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> On 2022/12/28 16:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 11:24:10AM +0900, Shunsuke Mie wrote: >> 2022年12月27日(火) 23:37 Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>: >>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 07:22:36PM +0900, Shunsuke Mie wrote: >>>> 2022年12月27日(火) 16:49 Shunsuke Mie <mie@igel.co.jp>: >>>>> 2022年12月27日(火) 16:04 Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>: >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 11:25:26AM +0900, Shunsuke Mie wrote: >>>>>>> Each vringh memory accessors that are for user, kern and iotlb has own >>>>>>> interfaces that calls common code. But some codes are duplicated and that >>>>>>> becomes loss extendability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Introduce a struct vringh_ops and provide a common APIs for all accessors. >>>>>>> It can bee easily extended vringh code for new memory accessor and >>>>>>> simplified a caller code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shunsuke Mie <mie@igel.co.jp> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> drivers/vhost/vringh.c | 667 +++++++++++------------------------------ >>>>>>> include/linux/vringh.h | 100 +++--- >>>>>>> 2 files changed, 225 insertions(+), 542 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vringh.c b/drivers/vhost/vringh.c >>>>>>> index aa3cd27d2384..ebfd3644a1a3 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/vhost/vringh.c >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vringh.c >>>>>>> @@ -35,15 +35,12 @@ static __printf(1,2) __cold void vringh_bad(const char *fmt, ...) >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /* Returns vring->num if empty, -ve on error. */ >>>>>>> -static inline int __vringh_get_head(const struct vringh *vrh, >>>>>>> - int (*getu16)(const struct vringh *vrh, >>>>>>> - u16 *val, const __virtio16 *p), >>>>>>> - u16 *last_avail_idx) >>>>>>> +static inline int __vringh_get_head(const struct vringh *vrh, u16 *last_avail_idx) >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> u16 avail_idx, i, head; >>>>>>> int err; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - err = getu16(vrh, &avail_idx, &vrh->vring.avail->idx); >>>>>>> + err = vrh->ops.getu16(vrh, &avail_idx, &vrh->vring.avail->idx); >>>>>>> if (err) { >>>>>>> vringh_bad("Failed to access avail idx at %p", >>>>>>> &vrh->vring.avail->idx); >>>>>> I like that this patch removes more lines of code than it adds. >>>>>> >>>>>> However one of the design points of vringh abstractions is that they were >>>>>> carefully written to be very low overhead. >>>>>> This is why we are passing function pointers to inline functions - >>>>>> compiler can optimize that out. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that introducing ops indirect functions calls here is going to break >>>>>> these assumptions and hurt performance. >>>>>> Unless compiler can somehow figure it out and optimize? >>>>>> I don't see how it's possible with ops pointer in memory >>>>>> but maybe I'm wrong. >>>>> I think your concern is correct. I have to understand the compiler >>>>> optimization and redesign this approach If it is needed. >>>>>> Was any effort taken to test effect of these patches on performance? >>>>> I just tested vringh_test and already faced little performance reduction. >>>>> I have to investigate that, as you said. >>>> I attempted to test with perf. I found that the performance of patched code >>>> is almost the same as the upstream one. However, I have to investigate way >>>> this patch leads to this result, also the profiling should be run on >>>> more powerful >>>> machines too. >>>> >>>> environment: >>>> $ grep 'model name' /proc/cpuinfo >>>> model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-7020U CPU @ 2.30GHz >>>> model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-7020U CPU @ 2.30GHz >>>> model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-7020U CPU @ 2.30GHz >>>> model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-7020U CPU @ 2.30GHz >>>> >>>> results: >>>> * for patched code >>>> Performance counter stats for 'nice -n -20 ./vringh_test_patched >>>> --parallel --eventidx --fast-vringh --indirect --virtio-1' (20 runs): >>>> >>>> 3,028.05 msec task-clock # 0.995 CPUs >>>> utilized ( +- 0.12% ) >>>> 78,150 context-switches # 25.691 K/sec >>>> ( +- 0.00% ) >>>> 5 cpu-migrations # 1.644 /sec >>>> ( +- 3.33% ) >>>> 190 page-faults # 62.461 /sec >>>> ( +- 0.41% ) >>>> 6,919,025,222 cycles # 2.275 GHz >>>> ( +- 0.13% ) >>>> 8,990,220,160 instructions # 1.29 insn per >>>> cycle ( +- 0.04% ) >>>> 1,788,326,786 branches # 587.899 M/sec >>>> ( +- 0.05% ) >>>> 4,557,398 branch-misses # 0.25% of all >>>> branches ( +- 0.43% ) >>>> >>>> 3.04359 +- 0.00378 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.12% ) >>>> >>>> * for upstream code >>>> Performance counter stats for 'nice -n -20 ./vringh_test_base >>>> --parallel --eventidx --fast-vringh --indirect --virtio-1' (10 runs): >>>> >>>> 3,058.41 msec task-clock # 0.999 CPUs >>>> utilized ( +- 0.14% ) >>>> 78,149 context-switches # 25.545 K/sec >>>> ( +- 0.00% ) >>>> 5 cpu-migrations # 1.634 /sec >>>> ( +- 2.67% ) >>>> 194 page-faults # 63.414 /sec >>>> ( +- 0.43% ) >>>> 6,988,713,963 cycles # 2.284 GHz >>>> ( +- 0.14% ) >>>> 8,512,533,269 instructions # 1.22 insn per >>>> cycle ( +- 0.04% ) >>>> 1,638,375,371 branches # 535.549 M/sec >>>> ( +- 0.05% ) >>>> 4,428,866 branch-misses # 0.27% of all >>>> branches ( +- 22.57% ) >>>> >>>> 3.06085 +- 0.00420 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.14% ) >>> >>> How you compiled it also matters. ATM we don't enable retpolines >>> and it did not matter since we didn't have indirect calls, >>> but we should. Didn't yet investigate how to do that for virtio tools. >> I think the retpolines certainly affect performance. Thank you for pointing >> it out. I'd like to start the investigation that how to apply the >> retpolines to the >> virtio tools. >>>>> Thank you for your comments. >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Shunsuke. > This isn't all that trivial if we want this at runtime. > But compile time is kind of easy. > See Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/spectre.rst Thank you for showing it. I followed the document and added options to CFLAGS to the tools Makefile. That is --- diff --git a/tools/virtio/Makefile b/tools/virtio/Makefile index 1b25cc7c64bb..7b7139d97d74 100644 --- a/tools/virtio/Makefile +++ b/tools/virtio/Makefile @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ test: virtio_test vringh_test virtio_test: virtio_ring.o virtio_test.o vringh_test: vringh_test.o vringh.o virtio_ring.o -CFLAGS += -g -O2 -Werror -Wno-maybe-uninitialized -Wall -I. -I../include/ -I ../../usr/include/ -Wno-pointer-sign -fno-strict-overflow -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -MMD -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -include ../../include/linux/kconfig.h +CFLAGS += -g -O2 -Werror -Wno-maybe-uninitialized -Wall -I. -I../include/ -I ../../usr/include/ -Wno-pointer-sign -fno-strict-overflow -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -MMD -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -include ../../include/linux/kconfig.h -mfunction-return=thunk -fcf-protection=none -mindirect-branch-register CFLAGS += -pthread LDFLAGS += -pthread vpath %.c ../../drivers/virtio ../../drivers/vhost --- And results of evaluation are following: - base with retpoline $ sudo perf stat --repeat 20 -- nice -n -20 ./vringh_test_retp_origin --parallel --eventidx --fast-vringh Using CPUS 0 and 3 Guest: notified 0, pinged 98040 Host: notified 98040, pinged 0 ... Performance counter stats for 'nice -n -20 ./vringh_test_retp_origin --parallel --eventidx --fast-vringh' (20 runs): 6,228.33 msec task-clock # 1.004 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.05% ) 196,110 context-switches # 31.616 K/sec ( +- 0.00% ) 6 cpu-migrations # 0.967 /sec ( +- 2.39% ) 205 page-faults # 33.049 /sec ( +- 0.46% ) 14,218,527,987 cycles # 2.292 GHz ( +- 0.05% ) 10,342,897,254 instructions # 0.73 insn per cycle ( +- 0.02% ) 2,310,572,989 branches # 372.500 M/sec ( +- 0.03% ) 178,273,068 branch-misses # 7.72% of all branches ( +- 0.04% ) 6.20406 +- 0.00308 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.05% ) - patched (unified APIs) with retpoline $ sudo perf stat --repeat 20 -- nice -n -20 ./vringh_test_retp_patched --parallel --eventidx --fast-vringh Using CPUS 0 and 3 Guest: notified 0, pinged 98040 Host: notified 98040, pinged 0 ... Performance counter stats for 'nice -n -20 ./vringh_test_retp_patched --parallel --eventidx --fast-vringh' (20 runs): 6,103.94 msec task-clock # 1.001 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.03% ) 196,125 context-switches # 32.165 K/sec ( +- 0.00% ) 7 cpu-migrations # 1.148 /sec ( +- 1.56% ) 196 page-faults # 32.144 /sec ( +- 0.41% ) 13,933,055,778 cycles # 2.285 GHz ( +- 0.03% ) 10,309,004,718 instructions # 0.74 insn per cycle ( +- 0.03% ) 2,368,447,519 branches # 388.425 M/sec ( +- 0.04% ) 211,364,886 branch-misses # 8.94% of all branches ( +- 0.05% ) 6.09888 +- 0.00155 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.03% ) As a result, at the patched code, the branch-misses was increased but elapsed time became faster than the based code. The number of page-faults was a little different. I'm suspicious of that the page-fault penalty leads the performance result. I think that a pattern of memory access for data is same with those, but for instruction is different. Actually a code size (.text segment) was a little smaller. 0x6a65 and 0x63f5. $ readelf -a ./vringh_test_retp_origin |grep .text -1 0000000000000008 0000000000000008 AX 0 0 8 [14] .text PROGBITS 0000000000001230 00001230 0000000000006a65 0000000000000000 AX 0 0 16 -- 02 .interp .note.gnu.build-id .note.ABI-tag .gnu.hash .dynsym .dynstr .gnu.version .gnu.version_r .rela.dyn .rela.plt 03 .init .plt .plt.got .text .fini 04 .rodata .eh_frame_hdr .eh_frame $ readelf -a ./vringh_test_retp_patched |grep .text -1 0000000000000008 0000000000000008 AX 0 0 8 [14] .text PROGBITS 0000000000001230 00001230 00000000000063f5 0000000000000000 AX 0 0 16 -- 02 .interp .note.gnu.build-id .note.ABI-tag .gnu.hash .dynsym .dynstr .gnu.version .gnu.version_r .rela.dyn .rela.plt 03 .init .plt .plt.got .text .fini 04 .rodata .eh_frame_hdr .eh_frame I'll keep this investigation. I was wondering if you could comment me. Best > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-11 4:10 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-12-27 2:25 [RFC PATCH 0/6] Introduce a vringh accessor for IO memory Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 2:25 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 2:25 ` [RFC PATCH 1/9] vringh: fix a typo in comments for vringh_kiov Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 2:25 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 2:25 ` [RFC PATCH 2/9] vringh: remove vringh_iov and unite to vringh_kiov Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 2:25 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 6:04 ` Jason Wang 2022-12-27 6:04 ` Jason Wang 2022-12-27 7:05 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2022-12-27 7:05 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2022-12-27 7:13 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 7:13 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 7:56 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2022-12-27 7:56 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2022-12-27 7:57 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 7:57 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 7:05 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 7:05 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-28 6:36 ` Jason Wang 2022-12-28 6:36 ` Jason Wang 2023-01-11 3:26 ` Shunsuke Mie 2023-01-11 3:26 ` Shunsuke Mie 2023-01-11 5:54 ` Jason Wang 2023-01-11 5:54 ` Jason Wang 2023-01-11 6:19 ` Shunsuke Mie 2023-01-11 6:19 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 2:25 ` [RFC PATCH 3/9] tools/virtio: convert to new vringh user APIs Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 2:25 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 2:25 ` [RFC PATCH 4/9] vringh: unify the APIs for all accessors Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 2:25 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 7:04 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2022-12-27 7:04 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2022-12-27 7:49 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 7:49 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 10:22 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 10:22 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 14:37 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2022-12-27 14:37 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2022-12-28 2:24 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-28 2:24 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-28 7:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2022-12-28 7:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2023-01-11 4:10 ` Shunsuke Mie [this message] 2023-01-11 4:10 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 2:25 ` [RFC PATCH 5/9] tools/virtio: convert to use new unified vringh APIs Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 2:25 ` Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 2:25 ` [RFC PATCH 6/9] caif_virtio: convert to " Shunsuke Mie 2022-12-27 2:25 ` Shunsuke Mie
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=28b421af-838d-e70a-ec95-2f14f21e3a90@igel.co.jp \ --to=mie@igel.co.jp \ --cc=jasowang@redhat.com \ --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mst@redhat.com \ --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \ --cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.