[PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Mihai Caraman]

On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
condition taking into account the lpid.

Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood <at> freescale.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
index 17e4562..2e0cd69 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
@@ -111,10 +111,12 @@ void kvmppc_mmu_msr_notify(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 old_msr)
 }
 
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_vcpu *, last_vcpu_on_cpu);
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, last_lpid_on_cpu);
 
 static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load_e500mc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
 {
 	struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500 = to_e500(vcpu);
+	bool update_last = false, inval_tlb = false;
 
 	kvmppc_booke_vcpu_load(vcpu, cpu);
 
@@ -140,12 +142,24 @@ static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load_e500mc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
 	mtspr(SPRN_GDEAR, vcpu->arch.shared->dar);
 	mtspr(SPRN_GESR, vcpu->arch.shared->esr);
 
-	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR) ||
-	    __get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
-		kvmppc_e500_tlbil_all(vcpu_e500);
+	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR)) {
+		/* tlb entries deprecated */
+		inval_tlb = update_last = true;
+	} else if (__get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
+		update_last = true;
+		/* tlb entries polluted */
+		inval_tlb = __get_cpu_var(last_lpid_on_cpu) ==
+			    vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid;
+	}
+
+	if (update_last) {
 		__get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) = vcpu;
+		__get_cpu_var(last_lpid_on_cpu) = vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid;
 	}
 
+	if (inval_tlb)
+		kvmppc_e500_tlbil_all(vcpu_e500);
+
 	kvmppc_load_guest_fp(vcpu);
 }
 
-- 
1.7.11.7

[PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Mihai Caraman]

On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
condition taking into account the lpid.

Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood <at> freescale.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
index 17e4562..2e0cd69 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
@@ -111,10 +111,12 @@ void kvmppc_mmu_msr_notify(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 old_msr)
 }
 
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_vcpu *, last_vcpu_on_cpu);
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, last_lpid_on_cpu);
 
 static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load_e500mc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
 {
 	struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500 = to_e500(vcpu);
+	bool update_last = false, inval_tlb = false;
 
 	kvmppc_booke_vcpu_load(vcpu, cpu);
 
@@ -140,12 +142,24 @@ static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load_e500mc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
 	mtspr(SPRN_GDEAR, vcpu->arch.shared->dar);
 	mtspr(SPRN_GESR, vcpu->arch.shared->esr);
 
-	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR) ||
-	    __get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
-		kvmppc_e500_tlbil_all(vcpu_e500);
+	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR)) {
+		/* tlb entries deprecated */
+		inval_tlb = update_last = true;
+	} else if (__get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
+		update_last = true;
+		/* tlb entries polluted */
+		inval_tlb = __get_cpu_var(last_lpid_on_cpu) ==
+			    vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid;
+	}
+
+	if (update_last) {
 		__get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) = vcpu;
+		__get_cpu_var(last_lpid_on_cpu) = vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid;
 	}
 
+	if (inval_tlb)
+		kvmppc_e500_tlbil_all(vcpu_e500);
+
 	kvmppc_load_guest_fp(vcpu);
 }
 
-- 
1.7.11.7

[PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Mihai Caraman]

On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
condition taking into account the lpid.

Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood <at> freescale.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
index 17e4562..2e0cd69 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
@@ -111,10 +111,12 @@ void kvmppc_mmu_msr_notify(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 old_msr)
 }
 
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_vcpu *, last_vcpu_on_cpu);
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, last_lpid_on_cpu);
 
 static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load_e500mc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
 {
 	struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500 = to_e500(vcpu);
+	bool update_last = false, inval_tlb = false;
 
 	kvmppc_booke_vcpu_load(vcpu, cpu);
 
@@ -140,12 +142,24 @@ static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load_e500mc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
 	mtspr(SPRN_GDEAR, vcpu->arch.shared->dar);
 	mtspr(SPRN_GESR, vcpu->arch.shared->esr);
 
-	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR) ||
-	    __get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
-		kvmppc_e500_tlbil_all(vcpu_e500);
+	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR)) {
+		/* tlb entries deprecated */
+		inval_tlb = update_last = true;
+	} else if (__get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
+		update_last = true;
+		/* tlb entries polluted */
+		inval_tlb = __get_cpu_var(last_lpid_on_cpu) =
+			    vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid;
+	}
+
+	if (update_last) {
 		__get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) = vcpu;
+		__get_cpu_var(last_lpid_on_cpu) = vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid;
 	}
 
+	if (inval_tlb)
+		kvmppc_e500_tlbil_all(vcpu_e500);
+
 	kvmppc_load_guest_fp(vcpu);
 }
 
-- 
1.7.11.7

Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Alexander Graf]

On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
> The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
> same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
> condition taking into account the lpid.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>

Your mailer is broken? :)
This really should be an @.

I think this should work. Scott, please ack.


Alex

> Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood <at> freescale.com>
> ---
>   arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
> index 17e4562..2e0cd69 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
> @@ -111,10 +111,12 @@ void kvmppc_mmu_msr_notify(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 old_msr)
>   }
>   
>   static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_vcpu *, last_vcpu_on_cpu);
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, last_lpid_on_cpu);
>   
>   static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load_e500mc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
>   {
>   	struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500 = to_e500(vcpu);
> +	bool update_last = false, inval_tlb = false;
>   
>   	kvmppc_booke_vcpu_load(vcpu, cpu);
>   
> @@ -140,12 +142,24 @@ static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load_e500mc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
>   	mtspr(SPRN_GDEAR, vcpu->arch.shared->dar);
>   	mtspr(SPRN_GESR, vcpu->arch.shared->esr);
>   
> -	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR) ||
> -	    __get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
> -		kvmppc_e500_tlbil_all(vcpu_e500);
> +	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR)) {
> +		/* tlb entries deprecated */
> +		inval_tlb = update_last = true;
> +	} else if (__get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
> +		update_last = true;
> +		/* tlb entries polluted */
> +		inval_tlb = __get_cpu_var(last_lpid_on_cpu) ==
> +			    vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (update_last) {
>   		__get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) = vcpu;
> +		__get_cpu_var(last_lpid_on_cpu) = vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid;
>   	}
>   
> +	if (inval_tlb)
> +		kvmppc_e500_tlbil_all(vcpu_e500);
> +
>   	kvmppc_load_guest_fp(vcpu);
>   }
>   

Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Alexander Graf]

On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
> The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
> same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
> condition taking into account the lpid.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>

Your mailer is broken? :)
This really should be an @.

I think this should work. Scott, please ack.


Alex

> Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood <at> freescale.com>
> ---
>   arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
> index 17e4562..2e0cd69 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
> @@ -111,10 +111,12 @@ void kvmppc_mmu_msr_notify(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 old_msr)
>   }
>   
>   static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_vcpu *, last_vcpu_on_cpu);
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, last_lpid_on_cpu);
>   
>   static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load_e500mc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
>   {
>   	struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500 = to_e500(vcpu);
> +	bool update_last = false, inval_tlb = false;
>   
>   	kvmppc_booke_vcpu_load(vcpu, cpu);
>   
> @@ -140,12 +142,24 @@ static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load_e500mc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
>   	mtspr(SPRN_GDEAR, vcpu->arch.shared->dar);
>   	mtspr(SPRN_GESR, vcpu->arch.shared->esr);
>   
> -	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR) ||
> -	    __get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
> -		kvmppc_e500_tlbil_all(vcpu_e500);
> +	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR)) {
> +		/* tlb entries deprecated */
> +		inval_tlb = update_last = true;
> +	} else if (__get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
> +		update_last = true;
> +		/* tlb entries polluted */
> +		inval_tlb = __get_cpu_var(last_lpid_on_cpu) ==
> +			    vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (update_last) {
>   		__get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) = vcpu;
> +		__get_cpu_var(last_lpid_on_cpu) = vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid;
>   	}
>   
> +	if (inval_tlb)
> +		kvmppc_e500_tlbil_all(vcpu_e500);
> +
>   	kvmppc_load_guest_fp(vcpu);
>   }
>   

Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Alexander Graf]

On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
> The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
> same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
> condition taking into account the lpid.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>

Your mailer is broken? :)
This really should be an @.

I think this should work. Scott, please ack.


Alex

> Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood <at> freescale.com>
> ---
>   arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
> index 17e4562..2e0cd69 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500mc.c
> @@ -111,10 +111,12 @@ void kvmppc_mmu_msr_notify(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 old_msr)
>   }
>   
>   static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_vcpu *, last_vcpu_on_cpu);
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, last_lpid_on_cpu);
>   
>   static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load_e500mc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
>   {
>   	struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500 = to_e500(vcpu);
> +	bool update_last = false, inval_tlb = false;
>   
>   	kvmppc_booke_vcpu_load(vcpu, cpu);
>   
> @@ -140,12 +142,24 @@ static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load_e500mc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
>   	mtspr(SPRN_GDEAR, vcpu->arch.shared->dar);
>   	mtspr(SPRN_GESR, vcpu->arch.shared->esr);
>   
> -	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR) ||
> -	    __get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
> -		kvmppc_e500_tlbil_all(vcpu_e500);
> +	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR)) {
> +		/* tlb entries deprecated */
> +		inval_tlb = update_last = true;
> +	} else if (__get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
> +		update_last = true;
> +		/* tlb entries polluted */
> +		inval_tlb = __get_cpu_var(last_lpid_on_cpu) =
> +			    vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (update_last) {
>   		__get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) = vcpu;
> +		__get_cpu_var(last_lpid_on_cpu) = vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid;
>   	}
>   
> +	if (inval_tlb)
> +		kvmppc_e500_tlbil_all(vcpu_e500);
> +
>   	kvmppc_load_guest_fp(vcpu);
>   }
>   

RE: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[mihai.caraman]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 PM
> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Wood Scott-B07421
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition
> on vcpu schedule
> 
> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
> > On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
> > The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
> > same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
> > condition taking into account the lpid.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
> 
> Your mailer is broken? :)
> This really should be an @.
> 
> I think this should work. Scott, please ack.

Alex, you were right. I screwed up the patch description by inverting relax
and tight terms :) It should have been more like this:

KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too loose.
The tlb entries of a vcpu are polluted (vs stale) only when a different vcpu
within the same logical partition runs in-between. Optimize the tlb invalidation
condition taking into account the lpid.

-Mike

RE: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[mihai.caraman]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 PM
> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Wood Scott-B07421
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition
> on vcpu schedule
>=20
> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
> > On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
> > The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
> > same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
> > condition taking into account the lpid.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
>=20
> Your mailer is broken? :)
> This really should be an @.
>=20
> I think this should work. Scott, please ack.

Alex, you were right. I screwed up the patch description by inverting relax
and tight terms :) It should have been more like this:

KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too loose.
The tlb entries of a vcpu are polluted (vs stale) only when a different vcp=
u
within the same logical partition runs in-between. Optimize the tlb invalid=
ation
condition taking into account the lpid.

-Mike

Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Alexander Graf]

On 13.06.14 16:43, mihai.caraman@freescale.com wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 PM
>> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
>> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Wood Scott-B07421
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition
>> on vcpu schedule
>>
>> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
>>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
>>> The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
>>> same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
>>> condition taking into account the lpid.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
>> Your mailer is broken? :)
>> This really should be an @.
>>
>> I think this should work. Scott, please ack.
> Alex, you were right. I screwed up the patch description by inverting relax
> and tight terms :) It should have been more like this:
>
> KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
>
> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too loose.
> The tlb entries of a vcpu are polluted (vs stale) only when a different vcpu
> within the same logical partition runs in-between. Optimize the tlb invalidation
> condition taking into account the lpid.

Can't we give every vcpu its own lpid? Or don't we trap on global 
invalidates?


Alex

Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Alexander Graf]

On 13.06.14 16:43, mihai.caraman@freescale.com wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 PM
>> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
>> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Wood Scott-B07421
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition
>> on vcpu schedule
>>
>> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
>>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
>>> The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
>>> same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
>>> condition taking into account the lpid.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
>> Your mailer is broken? :)
>> This really should be an @.
>>
>> I think this should work. Scott, please ack.
> Alex, you were right. I screwed up the patch description by inverting relax
> and tight terms :) It should have been more like this:
>
> KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
>
> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too loose.
> The tlb entries of a vcpu are polluted (vs stale) only when a different vcpu
> within the same logical partition runs in-between. Optimize the tlb invalidation
> condition taking into account the lpid.

Can't we give every vcpu its own lpid? Or don't we trap on global 
invalidates?


Alex

Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Alexander Graf]

On 13.06.14 16:43, mihai.caraman@freescale.com wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 PM
>> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
>> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Wood Scott-B07421
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition
>> on vcpu schedule
>>
>> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
>>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
>>> The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
>>> same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
>>> condition taking into account the lpid.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
>> Your mailer is broken? :)
>> This really should be an @.
>>
>> I think this should work. Scott, please ack.
> Alex, you were right. I screwed up the patch description by inverting relax
> and tight terms :) It should have been more like this:
>
> KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
>
> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too loose.
> The tlb entries of a vcpu are polluted (vs stale) only when a different vcpu
> within the same logical partition runs in-between. Optimize the tlb invalidation
> condition taking into account the lpid.

Can't we give every vcpu its own lpid? Or don't we trap on global 
invalidates?


Alex

Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Scott Wood]

On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 16:55 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 13.06.14 16:43, mihai.caraman@freescale.com wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 PM
> >> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
> >> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
> >> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Wood Scott-B07421
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition
> >> on vcpu schedule
> >>
> >> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
> >>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
> >>> The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
> >>> same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
> >>> condition taking into account the lpid.

Can you quantify the performance improvement from this?  We've had bugs
in this area before, so let's make sure it's worth it before making this
more complicated.

> >>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
> >> Your mailer is broken? :)
> >> This really should be an @.
> >>
> >> I think this should work. Scott, please ack.
> > Alex, you were right. I screwed up the patch description by inverting relax
> > and tight terms :) It should have been more like this:
> >
> > KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
> >
> > On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too loose.
> > The tlb entries of a vcpu are polluted (vs stale) only when a different vcpu
> > within the same logical partition runs in-between. Optimize the tlb invalidation
> > condition taking into account the lpid.
> 
> Can't we give every vcpu its own lpid? Or don't we trap on global 
> invalidates?

That would significantly increase the odds of exhausting LPIDs,
especially on large chips like t4240 with similarly large VMs.  If we
were to do that, the LPIDs would need to be dynamically assigned (like
PIDs), and should probably be a separate numberspace per physical core.

-Scott

Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Scott Wood]

On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 16:55 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 13.06.14 16:43, mihai.caraman@freescale.com wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 PM
> >> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
> >> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
> >> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Wood Scott-B07421
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition
> >> on vcpu schedule
> >>
> >> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
> >>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
> >>> The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
> >>> same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
> >>> condition taking into account the lpid.

Can you quantify the performance improvement from this?  We've had bugs
in this area before, so let's make sure it's worth it before making this
more complicated.

> >>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
> >> Your mailer is broken? :)
> >> This really should be an @.
> >>
> >> I think this should work. Scott, please ack.
> > Alex, you were right. I screwed up the patch description by inverting relax
> > and tight terms :) It should have been more like this:
> >
> > KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
> >
> > On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too loose.
> > The tlb entries of a vcpu are polluted (vs stale) only when a different vcpu
> > within the same logical partition runs in-between. Optimize the tlb invalidation
> > condition taking into account the lpid.
> 
> Can't we give every vcpu its own lpid? Or don't we trap on global 
> invalidates?

That would significantly increase the odds of exhausting LPIDs,
especially on large chips like t4240 with similarly large VMs.  If we
were to do that, the LPIDs would need to be dynamically assigned (like
PIDs), and should probably be a separate numberspace per physical core.

-Scott

Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Scott Wood]

On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 16:55 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 13.06.14 16:43, mihai.caraman@freescale.com wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 PM
> >> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
> >> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
> >> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Wood Scott-B07421
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition
> >> on vcpu schedule
> >>
> >> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
> >>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
> >>> The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
> >>> same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
> >>> condition taking into account the lpid.

Can you quantify the performance improvement from this?  We've had bugs
in this area before, so let's make sure it's worth it before making this
more complicated.

> >>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
> >> Your mailer is broken? :)
> >> This really should be an @.
> >>
> >> I think this should work. Scott, please ack.
> > Alex, you were right. I screwed up the patch description by inverting relax
> > and tight terms :) It should have been more like this:
> >
> > KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
> >
> > On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too loose.
> > The tlb entries of a vcpu are polluted (vs stale) only when a different vcpu
> > within the same logical partition runs in-between. Optimize the tlb invalidation
> > condition taking into account the lpid.
> 
> Can't we give every vcpu its own lpid? Or don't we trap on global 
> invalidates?

That would significantly increase the odds of exhausting LPIDs,
especially on large chips like t4240 with similarly large VMs.  If we
were to do that, the LPIDs would need to be dynamically assigned (like
PIDs), and should probably be a separate numberspace per physical core.

-Scott

Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Alexander Graf]

On 13.06.14 21:42, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 16:55 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 13.06.14 16:43, mihai.caraman@freescale.com wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 PM
>>>> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
>>>> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Wood Scott-B07421
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition
>>>> on vcpu schedule
>>>>
>>>> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
>>>>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
>>>>> The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
>>>>> same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
>>>>> condition taking into account the lpid.
> Can you quantify the performance improvement from this?  We've had bugs
> in this area before, so let's make sure it's worth it before making this
> more complicated.
>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
>>>> Your mailer is broken? :)
>>>> This really should be an @.
>>>>
>>>> I think this should work. Scott, please ack.
>>> Alex, you were right. I screwed up the patch description by inverting relax
>>> and tight terms :) It should have been more like this:
>>>
>>> KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
>>>
>>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too loose.
>>> The tlb entries of a vcpu are polluted (vs stale) only when a different vcpu
>>> within the same logical partition runs in-between. Optimize the tlb invalidation
>>> condition taking into account the lpid.
>> Can't we give every vcpu its own lpid? Or don't we trap on global
>> invalidates?
> That would significantly increase the odds of exhausting LPIDs,
> especially on large chips like t4240 with similarly large VMs.  If we
> were to do that, the LPIDs would need to be dynamically assigned (like
> PIDs), and should probably be a separate numberspace per physical core.

True, I didn't realize we only have so few of them. It would however 
save us from most flushing as long as we have spare LPIDs available :).


Alex

Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Alexander Graf]

On 13.06.14 21:42, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 16:55 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 13.06.14 16:43, mihai.caraman@freescale.com wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 PM
>>>> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
>>>> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Wood Scott-B07421
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition
>>>> on vcpu schedule
>>>>
>>>> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
>>>>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
>>>>> The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
>>>>> same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
>>>>> condition taking into account the lpid.
> Can you quantify the performance improvement from this?  We've had bugs
> in this area before, so let's make sure it's worth it before making this
> more complicated.
>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
>>>> Your mailer is broken? :)
>>>> This really should be an @.
>>>>
>>>> I think this should work. Scott, please ack.
>>> Alex, you were right. I screwed up the patch description by inverting relax
>>> and tight terms :) It should have been more like this:
>>>
>>> KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
>>>
>>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too loose.
>>> The tlb entries of a vcpu are polluted (vs stale) only when a different vcpu
>>> within the same logical partition runs in-between. Optimize the tlb invalidation
>>> condition taking into account the lpid.
>> Can't we give every vcpu its own lpid? Or don't we trap on global
>> invalidates?
> That would significantly increase the odds of exhausting LPIDs,
> especially on large chips like t4240 with similarly large VMs.  If we
> were to do that, the LPIDs would need to be dynamically assigned (like
> PIDs), and should probably be a separate numberspace per physical core.

True, I didn't realize we only have so few of them. It would however 
save us from most flushing as long as we have spare LPIDs available :).


Alex

Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Alexander Graf]

On 13.06.14 21:42, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 16:55 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 13.06.14 16:43, mihai.caraman@freescale.com wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 PM
>>>> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
>>>> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Wood Scott-B07421
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition
>>>> on vcpu schedule
>>>>
>>>> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
>>>>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too tight.
>>>>> The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from the
>>>>> same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
>>>>> condition taking into account the lpid.
> Can you quantify the performance improvement from this?  We've had bugs
> in this area before, so let's make sure it's worth it before making this
> more complicated.
>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
>>>> Your mailer is broken? :)
>>>> This really should be an @.
>>>>
>>>> I think this should work. Scott, please ack.
>>> Alex, you were right. I screwed up the patch description by inverting relax
>>> and tight terms :) It should have been more like this:
>>>
>>> KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
>>>
>>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too loose.
>>> The tlb entries of a vcpu are polluted (vs stale) only when a different vcpu
>>> within the same logical partition runs in-between. Optimize the tlb invalidation
>>> condition taking into account the lpid.
>> Can't we give every vcpu its own lpid? Or don't we trap on global
>> invalidates?
> That would significantly increase the odds of exhausting LPIDs,
> especially on large chips like t4240 with similarly large VMs.  If we
> were to do that, the LPIDs would need to be dynamically assigned (like
> PIDs), and should probably be a separate numberspace per physical core.

True, I didn't realize we only have so few of them. It would however 
save us from most flushing as long as we have spare LPIDs available :).


Alex

RE: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[mihai.caraman]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:09 PM
> To: Wood Scott-B07421
> Cc: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org;
> kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition
> on vcpu schedule
> 
> 
> On 13.06.14 21:42, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 16:55 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> On 13.06.14 16:43, mihai.caraman@freescale.com wrote:
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de]
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 PM
> >>>> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
> >>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
> >>>> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Wood Scott-B07421
> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation
> condition
> >>>> on vcpu schedule
> >>>>
> >>>> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
> >>>>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too
> tight.
> >>>>> The tlb entries of one vcpu are polluted when a different vcpu from
> the
> >>>>> same partition runs in-between. Relax the current tlb invalidation
> >>>>> condition taking into account the lpid.
> > Can you quantify the performance improvement from this?  We've had bugs
> > in this area before, so let's make sure it's worth it before making
> this
> > more complicated.
> >
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman <at> freescale.com>
> >>>> Your mailer is broken? :)
> >>>> This really should be an @.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think this should work. Scott, please ack.
> >>> Alex, you were right. I screwed up the patch description by inverting
> relax
> >>> and tight terms :) It should have been more like this:
> >>>
> >>> KVM: PPC: e500mc: Enhance tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule
> >>>
> >>> On vcpu schedule, the condition checked for tlb pollution is too
> loose.
> >>> The tlb entries of a vcpu are polluted (vs stale) only when a
> different vcpu
> >>> within the same logical partition runs in-between. Optimize the tlb
> invalidation
> >>> condition taking into account the lpid.
> >> Can't we give every vcpu its own lpid? Or don't we trap on global
> >> invalidates?
> > That would significantly increase the odds of exhausting LPIDs,
> > especially on large chips like t4240 with similarly large VMs.  If we
> > were to do that, the LPIDs would need to be dynamically assigned (like
> > PIDs), and should probably be a separate numberspace per physical core.
> 
> True, I didn't realize we only have so few of them. It would however
> save us from most flushing as long as we have spare LPIDs available :).

Yes, we had this proposal on the table for e6500 multithreaded core. This
core lacks tlb write conditional instruction, so an OS needs to use locks
to protect itself against concurrent tlb writes executed from sibling threads.
When we expose hw treads as single-threaded vcpus (useful when the user opt
not to pin vcpus), the guest can't no longer protect itself optimally
(it can protect tlb writes across all threads but this is not acceptable).
So instead, we found a solution at hypervisor level by assigning different
logical partition ids to guest's vcpus running simultaneous on sibling hw
threads. Currently in FSL SDK we allocate two lpids to each guest.

I am also a proponent for using all LPID space (63 values) per (multi-threaded)
physical core, which will lead to fewer invalidates on vcpu schedule and will
accommodate the solution described above.

-Mike

RE: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[mihai.caraman]

PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBBbGV4YW5kZXIgR3JhZiBbbWFp
bHRvOmFncmFmQHN1c2UuZGVdDQo+IFNlbnQ6IFR1ZXNkYXksIEp1bmUgMTcsIDIwMTQgMTI6MDkg
UE0NCj4gVG86IFdvb2QgU2NvdHQtQjA3NDIxDQo+IENjOiBDYXJhbWFuIE1paGFpIENsYXVkaXUt
QjAyMDA4OyBrdm0tcHBjQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZzsNCj4ga3ZtQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZzsg
bGludXhwcGMtZGV2QGxpc3RzLm96bGFicy5vcmcNCj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtQQVRDSF0gS1ZN
OiBQUEM6IGU1MDBtYzogUmVsYXggdGxiIGludmFsaWRhdGlvbiBjb25kaXRpb24NCj4gb24gdmNw
dSBzY2hlZHVsZQ0KPiANCj4gDQo+IE9uIDEzLjA2LjE0IDIxOjQyLCBTY290dCBXb29kIHdyb3Rl
Og0KPiA+IE9uIEZyaSwgMjAxNC0wNi0xMyBhdCAxNjo1NSArMDIwMCwgQWxleGFuZGVyIEdyYWYg
d3JvdGU6DQo+ID4+IE9uIDEzLjA2LjE0IDE2OjQzLCBtaWhhaS5jYXJhbWFuQGZyZWVzY2FsZS5j
b20gd3JvdGU6DQo+ID4+Pj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gPj4+PiBGcm9t
OiBBbGV4YW5kZXIgR3JhZiBbbWFpbHRvOmFncmFmQHN1c2UuZGVdDQo+ID4+Pj4gU2VudDogVGh1
cnNkYXksIEp1bmUgMTIsIDIwMTQgODowNSBQTQ0KPiA+Pj4+IFRvOiBDYXJhbWFuIE1paGFpIENs
YXVkaXUtQjAyMDA4DQo+ID4+Pj4gQ2M6IGt2bS1wcGNAdmdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnOyBrdm1Admdl
ci5rZXJuZWwub3JnOyBsaW51eHBwYy0NCj4gPj4+PiBkZXZAbGlzdHMub3psYWJzLm9yZzsgV29v
ZCBTY290dC1CMDc0MjENCj4gPj4+PiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW1BBVENIXSBLVk06IFBQQzogZTUw
MG1jOiBSZWxheCB0bGIgaW52YWxpZGF0aW9uDQo+IGNvbmRpdGlvbg0KPiA+Pj4+IG9uIHZjcHUg
c2NoZWR1bGUNCj4gPj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+IE9uIDA2LzEyLzIwMTQgMDQ6MDAgUE0sIE1paGFpIENh
cmFtYW4gd3JvdGU6DQo+ID4+Pj4+IE9uIHZjcHUgc2NoZWR1bGUsIHRoZSBjb25kaXRpb24gY2hl
Y2tlZCBmb3IgdGxiIHBvbGx1dGlvbiBpcyB0b28NCj4gdGlnaHQuDQo+ID4+Pj4+IFRoZSB0bGIg
ZW50cmllcyBvZiBvbmUgdmNwdSBhcmUgcG9sbHV0ZWQgd2hlbiBhIGRpZmZlcmVudCB2Y3B1IGZy
b20NCj4gdGhlDQo+ID4+Pj4+IHNhbWUgcGFydGl0aW9uIHJ1bnMgaW4tYmV0d2Vlbi4gUmVsYXgg
dGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgdGxiIGludmFsaWRhdGlvbg0KPiA+Pj4+PiBjb25kaXRpb24gdGFraW5nIGlu
dG8gYWNjb3VudCB0aGUgbHBpZC4NCj4gPiBDYW4geW91IHF1YW50aWZ5IHRoZSBwZXJmb3JtYW5j
ZSBpbXByb3ZlbWVudCBmcm9tIHRoaXM/ICBXZSd2ZSBoYWQgYnVncw0KPiA+IGluIHRoaXMgYXJl
YSBiZWZvcmUsIHNvIGxldCdzIG1ha2Ugc3VyZSBpdCdzIHdvcnRoIGl0IGJlZm9yZSBtYWtpbmcN
Cj4gdGhpcw0KPiA+IG1vcmUgY29tcGxpY2F0ZWQuDQo+ID4NCj4gPj4+Pj4gU2lnbmVkLW9mZi1i
eTogTWloYWkgQ2FyYW1hbiA8bWloYWkuY2FyYW1hbiA8YXQ+IGZyZWVzY2FsZS5jb20+DQo+ID4+
Pj4gWW91ciBtYWlsZXIgaXMgYnJva2VuPyA6KQ0KPiA+Pj4+IFRoaXMgcmVhbGx5IHNob3VsZCBi
ZSBhbiBALg0KPiA+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4gSSB0aGluayB0aGlzIHNob3VsZCB3b3JrLiBTY290dCwg
cGxlYXNlIGFjay4NCj4gPj4+IEFsZXgsIHlvdSB3ZXJlIHJpZ2h0LiBJIHNjcmV3ZWQgdXAgdGhl
IHBhdGNoIGRlc2NyaXB0aW9uIGJ5IGludmVydGluZw0KPiByZWxheA0KPiA+Pj4gYW5kIHRpZ2h0
IHRlcm1zIDopIEl0IHNob3VsZCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gbW9yZSBsaWtlIHRoaXM6DQo+ID4+Pg0KPiA+
Pj4gS1ZNOiBQUEM6IGU1MDBtYzogRW5oYW5jZSB0bGIgaW52YWxpZGF0aW9uIGNvbmRpdGlvbiBv
biB2Y3B1IHNjaGVkdWxlDQo+ID4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4gT24gdmNwdSBzY2hlZHVsZSwgdGhlIGNvbmRp
dGlvbiBjaGVja2VkIGZvciB0bGIgcG9sbHV0aW9uIGlzIHRvbw0KPiBsb29zZS4NCj4gPj4+IFRo
ZSB0bGIgZW50cmllcyBvZiBhIHZjcHUgYXJlIHBvbGx1dGVkICh2cyBzdGFsZSkgb25seSB3aGVu
IGENCj4gZGlmZmVyZW50IHZjcHUNCj4gPj4+IHdpdGhpbiB0aGUgc2FtZSBsb2dpY2FsIHBhcnRp
dGlvbiBydW5zIGluLWJldHdlZW4uIE9wdGltaXplIHRoZSB0bGINCj4gaW52YWxpZGF0aW9uDQo+
ID4+PiBjb25kaXRpb24gdGFraW5nIGludG8gYWNjb3VudCB0aGUgbHBpZC4NCj4gPj4gQ2FuJ3Qg
d2UgZ2l2ZSBldmVyeSB2Y3B1IGl0cyBvd24gbHBpZD8gT3IgZG9uJ3Qgd2UgdHJhcCBvbiBnbG9i
YWwNCj4gPj4gaW52YWxpZGF0ZXM/DQo+ID4gVGhhdCB3b3VsZCBzaWduaWZpY2FudGx5IGluY3Jl
YXNlIHRoZSBvZGRzIG9mIGV4aGF1c3RpbmcgTFBJRHMsDQo+ID4gZXNwZWNpYWxseSBvbiBsYXJn
ZSBjaGlwcyBsaWtlIHQ0MjQwIHdpdGggc2ltaWxhcmx5IGxhcmdlIFZNcy4gIElmIHdlDQo+ID4g
d2VyZSB0byBkbyB0aGF0LCB0aGUgTFBJRHMgd291bGQgbmVlZCB0byBiZSBkeW5hbWljYWxseSBh
c3NpZ25lZCAobGlrZQ0KPiA+IFBJRHMpLCBhbmQgc2hvdWxkIHByb2JhYmx5IGJlIGEgc2VwYXJh
dGUgbnVtYmVyc3BhY2UgcGVyIHBoeXNpY2FsIGNvcmUuDQo+IA0KPiBUcnVlLCBJIGRpZG4ndCBy
ZWFsaXplIHdlIG9ubHkgaGF2ZSBzbyBmZXcgb2YgdGhlbS4gSXQgd291bGQgaG93ZXZlcg0KPiBz
YXZlIHVzIGZyb20gbW9zdCBmbHVzaGluZyBhcyBsb25nIGFzIHdlIGhhdmUgc3BhcmUgTFBJRHMg
YXZhaWxhYmxlIDopLg0KDQpZZXMsIHdlIGhhZCB0aGlzIHByb3Bvc2FsIG9uIHRoZSB0YWJsZSBm
b3IgZTY1MDAgbXVsdGl0aHJlYWRlZCBjb3JlLiBUaGlzDQpjb3JlIGxhY2tzIHRsYiB3cml0ZSBj
b25kaXRpb25hbCBpbnN0cnVjdGlvbiwgc28gYW4gT1MgbmVlZHMgdG8gdXNlIGxvY2tzDQp0byBw
cm90ZWN0IGl0c2VsZiBhZ2FpbnN0IGNvbmN1cnJlbnQgdGxiIHdyaXRlcyBleGVjdXRlZCBmcm9t
IHNpYmxpbmcgdGhyZWFkcy4NCldoZW4gd2UgZXhwb3NlIGh3IHRyZWFkcyBhcyBzaW5nbGUtdGhy
ZWFkZWQgdmNwdXMgKHVzZWZ1bCB3aGVuIHRoZSB1c2VyIG9wdA0Kbm90IHRvIHBpbiB2Y3B1cyks
IHRoZSBndWVzdCBjYW4ndCBubyBsb25nZXIgcHJvdGVjdCBpdHNlbGYgb3B0aW1hbGx5DQooaXQg
Y2FuIHByb3RlY3QgdGxiIHdyaXRlcyBhY3Jvc3MgYWxsIHRocmVhZHMgYnV0IHRoaXMgaXMgbm90
IGFjY2VwdGFibGUpLg0KU28gaW5zdGVhZCwgd2UgZm91bmQgYSBzb2x1dGlvbiBhdCBoeXBlcnZp
c29yIGxldmVsIGJ5IGFzc2lnbmluZyBkaWZmZXJlbnQNCmxvZ2ljYWwgcGFydGl0aW9uIGlkcyB0
byBndWVzdCdzIHZjcHVzIHJ1bm5pbmcgc2ltdWx0YW5lb3VzIG9uIHNpYmxpbmcgaHcNCnRocmVh
ZHMuIEN1cnJlbnRseSBpbiBGU0wgU0RLIHdlIGFsbG9jYXRlIHR3byBscGlkcyB0byBlYWNoIGd1
ZXN0Lg0KDQpJIGFtIGFsc28gYSBwcm9wb25lbnQgZm9yIHVzaW5nIGFsbCBMUElEIHNwYWNlICg2
MyB2YWx1ZXMpIHBlciAobXVsdGktdGhyZWFkZWQpDQpwaHlzaWNhbCBjb3JlLCB3aGljaCB3aWxs
IGxlYWQgdG8gZmV3ZXIgaW52YWxpZGF0ZXMgb24gdmNwdSBzY2hlZHVsZSBhbmQgd2lsbA0KYWNj
b21tb2RhdGUgdGhlIHNvbHV0aW9uIGRlc2NyaWJlZCBhYm92ZS4NCg0KLU1pa2UNCg==

RE: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[mihai.caraman]
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=

Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Scott Wood]

On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 19:04 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
> > @@ -140,12 +142,24 @@ static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load_e500mc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
> >   	mtspr(SPRN_GDEAR, vcpu->arch.shared->dar);
> >   	mtspr(SPRN_GESR, vcpu->arch.shared->esr);
> >   
> > -	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR) ||
> > -	    __get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
> > -		kvmppc_e500_tlbil_all(vcpu_e500);
> > +	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR)) {
> > +		/* tlb entries deprecated */
> > +		inval_tlb = update_last = true;
> > +	} else if (__get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
> > +		update_last = true;
> > +		/* tlb entries polluted */
> > +		inval_tlb = __get_cpu_var(last_lpid_on_cpu) ==
> > +			    vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid;
> > +	}

What about the following sequence on one CPU:

LPID 1, vcpu A
LPID 2, vcpu C
LPID 1, vcpu B
LPID 2, vcpu C	doesn't invalidate
LPID 1, vcpu A  doesn't invalidate

In the last line, vcpu A last ran on this cpu (oldpir matches), but LPID
2 last ran on this cpu (last_lpid_on_cpu does not match) -- but an
invalidation has never happened since vcpu B from LPID 1 ran on this
cpu.

-Scott


_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Scott Wood]

On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 19:04 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
> > @@ -140,12 +142,24 @@ static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load_e500mc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
> >   	mtspr(SPRN_GDEAR, vcpu->arch.shared->dar);
> >   	mtspr(SPRN_GESR, vcpu->arch.shared->esr);
> >   
> > -	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR) ||
> > -	    __get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
> > -		kvmppc_e500_tlbil_all(vcpu_e500);
> > +	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR)) {
> > +		/* tlb entries deprecated */
> > +		inval_tlb = update_last = true;
> > +	} else if (__get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
> > +		update_last = true;
> > +		/* tlb entries polluted */
> > +		inval_tlb = __get_cpu_var(last_lpid_on_cpu) ==
> > +			    vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid;
> > +	}

What about the following sequence on one CPU:

LPID 1, vcpu A
LPID 2, vcpu C
LPID 1, vcpu B
LPID 2, vcpu C	doesn't invalidate
LPID 1, vcpu A  doesn't invalidate

In the last line, vcpu A last ran on this cpu (oldpir matches), but LPID
2 last ran on this cpu (last_lpid_on_cpu does not match) -- but an
invalidation has never happened since vcpu B from LPID 1 ran on this
cpu.

-Scott

Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Relax tlb invalidation condition on vcpu schedule

[Scott Wood]

On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 19:04 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 06/12/2014 04:00 PM, Mihai Caraman wrote:
> > @@ -140,12 +142,24 @@ static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_load_e500mc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
> >   	mtspr(SPRN_GDEAR, vcpu->arch.shared->dar);
> >   	mtspr(SPRN_GESR, vcpu->arch.shared->esr);
> >   
> > -	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR) ||
> > -	    __get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
> > -		kvmppc_e500_tlbil_all(vcpu_e500);
> > +	if (vcpu->arch.oldpir != mfspr(SPRN_PIR)) {
> > +		/* tlb entries deprecated */
> > +		inval_tlb = update_last = true;
> > +	} else if (__get_cpu_var(last_vcpu_on_cpu) != vcpu) {
> > +		update_last = true;
> > +		/* tlb entries polluted */
> > +		inval_tlb = __get_cpu_var(last_lpid_on_cpu) =
> > +			    vcpu->kvm->arch.lpid;
> > +	}

What about the following sequence on one CPU:

LPID 1, vcpu A
LPID 2, vcpu C
LPID 1, vcpu B
LPID 2, vcpu C	doesn't invalidate
LPID 1, vcpu A  doesn't invalidate

In the last line, vcpu A last ran on this cpu (oldpir matches), but LPID
2 last ran on this cpu (last_lpid_on_cpu does not match) -- but an
invalidation has never happened since vcpu B from LPID 1 ran on this
cpu.

-Scott