lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 7/7] x86/kvm: use Enlightened VMCS when running on Hyper-V
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes:
> >> > On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> >> Static key is being used to avoid performance penalty for non-Hyper-V
> >> >> deployments. Tests show we add around 3 (three) CPU cycles on each
> >> >> VMEXIT (1077.5 cycles before, 1080.7 cycles after for the same CPUID
> >> >> loop on bare metal). We can probably avoid one test/jmp in vmx_vcpu_run()
> >> >> but I don't see a clean way to use static key in assembly.
> >> >
> >> > STATIC_JUMP_IF_TRUE, STATIC_JUMP_IF_FALSE are your friends.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thanks for the tip,
> >>
> >> with a single kernel user of these APIs it was easy to miss :-)
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, these APIs are only present if HAVE_JUMP_LABEL and
> >> (afaiu) we still care about KVM on !HAVE_JUMP_LABEL builds. It would be
> >> nice if we can make them behave the same way static_branch_likely() and
> >> friends do: compile into something else when !HAVE_JUMP_LABEL so we can
> >> avoid nasty #ifdefs in C code.
> >
> > What's the reason for !jump label builds of a recent kernel? Old compilers?
> >
>
> To be honest I don't see any, we can start depending on HAVE_JUMP_LABEL
> for CONFIG_KVM I guess.

We currently try to move the minimum compiler version to one which provides
jump label support, so this should be a non issue.

@Peter: What was the final conclusion of this discussion?

Thanks,

tglx

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-14 21:00    [W:0.083 / U:5.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site