From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kvm-s390: Implement the directed yield (diag 9c)
 hypervisor call for KVM
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:44:17 +0200
Message-ID: <4F96A021.4000704@de.ibm.com>
References: <1335252285-54213-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <1335252285-54213-2-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <4F9696B8.8080108@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Marcelo Tossati <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	Carsten Otte <cotte@de.ibm.com>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>,
	Jens Freimann <jfrei@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
	Heinz Graalfs <graalfs@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Konstantin Weitz <WEITZKON@de.ibm.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.108]:59544 "EHLO
	e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753799Ab2DXMoV (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:44:21 -0400
Received: from /spool/local
	by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org> from <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>;
	Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:44:19 +0100
Received: from d06av12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.247])
	by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q3OCiFRh2605304
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:44:15 +0100
Received: from d06av12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d06av12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q3OCiEPl013041
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 06:44:14 -0600
In-Reply-To: <4F9696B8.8080108@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 24/04/12 14:04, Avi Kivity wrote:
[...]

>> +	int tid;
>> +	int i;
>> +
>> +	tid = vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[(vcpu->arch.sie_block->ipa & 0xf0) >> 4];
>> +	vcpu->stat.diagnose_9c++;
>> +	VCPU_EVENT(vcpu, 5, "diag time slice end directed to %d", tid);
>> +
>> +	if (tid == vcpu->vcpu_id)
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tcpu, kvm) {
>> +		if (tcpu->vcpu_id == tid) {
> 
> Can two vcpus match the same tid?

Dont think so. tid (target id) is the cpu number of the CPU holding the
spinlock and vcpu_id is checked for in kvm_vcpu_init to be unique.

[...]
>> +			vcpu_put(vcpu);
>> +			if (yield_to(task, 1)) {
>> +				vcpu_load(vcpu);
> 
> vcpu_put()/_load()s are unneeded here, preempt notifiers will
> automatically call kvm_arch_vcpu_put()/_load() if we schedule.

Right. Will send an updated patch.

[...]
>> @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ struct kvm_stats_debugfs_item debugfs_entries[] = {
>>  	{ "instruction_sigp_restart", VCPU_STAT(instruction_sigp_restart) },
>>  	{ "diagnose_10", VCPU_STAT(diagnose_10) },
>>  	{ "diagnose_44", VCPU_STAT(diagnose_44) },
>> +	{ "diagnose_9c", VCPU_STAT(diagnose_9c) },
>>  	{ NULL }
>>  };
>>  
> 
> We're switching to tracepoints instead of homebrewed statistics.  It's
> in feature-removal-schedule.txt already.  It's okay to add them now, but
> please prepare for their removal.

Yes, we have started with some tracepoint code conversion. We will try to speed
up a bit.

Christian