From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139C9C433B4 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:31:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9496145D for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:31:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5B9496145D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C8B4B397; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:31:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VfyONHxGyHzA; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:31:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B6A34B37F; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:31:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDEC64B366 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:31:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cXtu9PEok5Dk for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:31:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 339E44B314 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.53]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4FRS872hQ1zWb1D; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:27:19 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpeml100024.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.115) by DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.498.0; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:31:09 +0800 Received: from lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) by dggpeml100024.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.115) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:31:08 +0800 Received: from lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com ([169.254.81.184]) by lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com ([169.254.81.184]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:31:06 +0100 From: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi To: Will Deacon Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 00/16] kvm/arm: Align the VMID allocation with the arm64 ASID one Thread-Topic: [PATCH v4 00/16] kvm/arm: Align the VMID allocation with the arm64 ASID one Thread-Index: AQHXMSCyInFjZI/53EW8vK01de3czarAsIkAgAENuIA= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:31:06 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20210414112312.13704-1-shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> <20210422160846.GB2214@willie-the-truck> In-Reply-To: <20210422160846.GB2214@willie-the-truck> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.94.116] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "jean-philippe@linaro.org" , "julien@xen.org" , "maz@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linuxarm , "catalin.marinas@arm.com" , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Will Deacon [mailto:will@kernel.org] > Sent: 22 April 2021 18:09 > To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu; > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; maz@kernel.org; catalin.marinas@arm.com; > james.morse@arm.com; julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com; > suzuki.poulose@arm.com; jean-philippe@linaro.org; julien@xen.org; Linuxarm > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] kvm/arm: Align the VMID allocation with the > arm64 ASID one > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:22:56PM +0100, Shameer Kolothum wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This is an attempt to revive this series originally posted by > > Julien Grall[1]. The main motive to work on this now is because > > of the requirement to have Pinned KVM VMIDs and the RFC discussion > > for the same basically suggested[2] to have a common/better vmid > > allocator for KVM which this series provides. > > > > Major Changes from v3: > > > > -Changes related to Pinned ASID support. > > -Changes to take care KPTI related bits reservation. > > -Dropped support for 32 bit KVM. > > -Rebase to 5.12-rc7 > > > > Individual patches have change history for any major changes > > from v3. > > > > Tests were performed on a HiSilicon D06 platform and so far not observed > > any regressions. > > > > For ASID allocation, > > > > Avg of 10 runs(hackbench -s 512 -l 200 -g 300 -f 25 -P), > > 5.12-rc7: Time:18.8119 > > 5.12-rc7+v4: Time: 18.459 > > > > ~1.8% improvement. > > > > For KVM VMID, > > > > The measurement was made with maxcpus set to 8 and with the > > number of VMID limited to 4-bit. The test involves running > > concurrently 40 guests with 2 vCPUs. Each guest will then > > execute hackbench 5 times before exiting. > > > > The performance difference between the current algo and the > > new one are(ag. of 10 runs): > > - 1.9% less exit from the guest > > - 0.7% faster > > > > For complete series, please see, > > https://github.com/hisilicon/kernel-dev/tree/private-v5.12-rc7-asid-v4 > > > > Please take a look and let me know your feedback. > > Although I think aligning the two algorithms makes sense, I'm not completely > sold on the need to abstract all this into a library and whether the > additional indirection is justified. > > It would be great to compare this approach with one where portions of the > code are duplicated into a separate VMID allocator. Have you tried that to > see what it looks like? Doesn't need to be a proper patch set, but comparing > the end result might help to evaluate the proposal here. Ok. I will give it a go and get back. Thanks, Shameer _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm