From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc: wanpengli@tencent.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, david@redhat.com,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com,
peterx@redhat.com, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, paulus@ozlabs.org,
hpa@zytor.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com,
maz@kernel.org, joro@8bytes.org, x86@kernel.org,
mingo@redhat.com, julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com,
gor@linux.ibm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, bp@alien8.de, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, jmattson@google.com,
tsbogend@alpha.franken.de, christoffer.dall@arm.com,
sean.j.christopherson@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
james.morse@arm.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, pbonzini@redhat.com,
vkuznets@redhat.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] KVM: s390: clean up redundant 'kvm_run' parameters
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 14:59:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <73f6ecd0-ac47-eaad-0e4f-2d41c2b34450@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1d73b700-4a20-3d7a-66d1-29b5afa03f4d@de.ibm.com>
On 23/04/2020 13.00, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 23.04.20 12:58, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2020/4/23 18:39, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:01:43 +0800
>>> Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2020/4/23 0:04, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:58:04 +0200
>>>>> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22.04.20 15:45, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 20:58:04 +0800
>>>>>>> Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the current kvm version, 'kvm_run' has been included in the 'kvm_vcpu'
>>>>>>>> structure. Earlier than historical reasons, many kvm-related function
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> s/Earlier than/For/ ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> parameters retain the 'kvm_run' and 'kvm_vcpu' parameters at the same time.
>>>>>>>> This patch does a unified cleanup of these remaining redundant parameters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>>>>> index e335a7e5ead7..d7bb2e7a07ff 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -4176,8 +4176,9 @@ static int __vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>>>> return rc;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> -static void sync_regs_fmt2(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *kvm_run)
>>>>>>>> +static void sync_regs_fmt2(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> + struct kvm_run *kvm_run = vcpu->run;
>>>>>>>> struct runtime_instr_cb *riccb;
>>>>>>>> struct gs_cb *gscb;
>>>>>>>> @@ -4235,7 +4236,7 @@ static void sync_regs_fmt2(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *kvm_run)
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> if (vcpu->arch.gs_enabled) {
>>>>>>>> current->thread.gs_cb = (struct gs_cb *)
>>>>>>>> - &vcpu->run->s.regs.gscb;
>>>>>>>> + &kvm_run->s.regs.gscb;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not sure if these changes (vcpu->run-> => kvm_run->) are really worth
>>>>>>> it. (It seems they amount to at least as much as the changes advertised
>>>>>>> in the patch description.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Other opinions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed. It feels kind of random. Maybe just do the first line (move kvm_run from the
>>>>>> function parameter list into the variable declaration)? Not sure if this is better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's more in this patch that I cut... but I think just moving
>>>>> kvm_run from the parameter list would be much less disruptive.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think there are two kinds of code(`vcpu->run->` and `kvm_run->`), but
>>>> there will be more disruptive, not less.
>>>
>>> I just fail to see the benefit; sure, kvm_run-> is convenient, but the
>>> current code is just fine, and any rework should be balanced against
>>> the cost (e.g. cluttering git annotate).
>>>
>>
>> cluttering git annotate ? Does it mean Fix xxxx ("comment"). Is it possible to solve this problem by splitting this patch?
>
> No its about breaking git blame (and bugfix backports) for just a cosmetic improvement.
It could be slightly more than a cosmetic improvement (depending on the
smartness of the compiler): vcpu->run-> are two dereferences, while
kvm_run-> is only one dereference. So it could be slightly more compact
and faster code.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-26 13:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-22 12:58 [PATCH v2 0/7] clean up redundant 'kvm_run' parameters Tianjia Zhang
2020-04-22 12:58 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] KVM: s390: " Tianjia Zhang
2020-04-22 13:45 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-04-22 15:58 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-04-22 16:04 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-04-23 3:01 ` Tianjia Zhang
2020-04-23 10:39 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-04-23 10:58 ` Tianjia Zhang
2020-04-23 11:00 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-04-23 11:11 ` Tianjia Zhang
2020-04-26 12:59 ` Thomas Huth [this message]
2020-04-29 2:20 ` Tianjia Zhang
2020-04-23 3:14 ` Tianjia Zhang
2020-04-23 2:54 ` Tianjia Zhang
2020-04-22 12:58 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] KVM: arm64: " Tianjia Zhang
2020-04-22 12:58 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] KVM: PPC: Remove redundant kvm_run from vcpu_arch Tianjia Zhang
2020-04-22 12:58 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] KVM: PPC: clean up redundant 'kvm_run' parameters Tianjia Zhang
2020-04-22 12:58 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] KVM: PPC: clean up redundant kvm_run parameters in assembly Tianjia Zhang
2020-04-22 12:58 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] KVM: MIPS: clean up redundant 'kvm_run' parameters Tianjia Zhang
2020-04-22 12:58 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] KVM: MIPS: clean up redundant kvm_run parameters in assembly Tianjia Zhang
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=73f6ecd0-ac47-eaad-0e4f-2d41c2b34450@redhat.com \
--to=thuth@redhat.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=christoffer.dall@arm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@ozlabs.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=tsbogend@alpha.franken.de \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).