Re: [PATCH 0/4] powernv: kvm: numa fault improvement
From: Paul Mackerras <hidden>
Date: 2014-01-21 11:22:04
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:48:36PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 15.01.2014, at 07:36, Liu ping fan [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Alexander Graf [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On 11.12.2013, at 09:47, Liu Ping Fan [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
This series is based on Aneesh's series "[PATCH -V2 0/5] powerpc: mm: Numa faults support for ppc64" For this series, I apply the same idea from the previous thread "[PATCH 0/3] optimize for powerpc _PAGE_NUMA" (for which, I still try to get a machine to show nums) But for this series, I think that I have a good justification -- the fact of heavy cost when switching context between guest and host, which is well known.This cover letter isn't really telling me anything. Please put a proper description of what you're trying to achieve, why you're trying to achieve what you're trying and convince your readers that it's a good idea to do it the way you do it.Sorry for the unclear message. After introducing the _PAGE_NUMA, kvmppc_do_h_enter() can not fill up the hpte for guest. Instead, it should rely on host's kvmppc_book3s_hv_page_fault() to call do_numa_page() to do the numa fault check. This incurs the overhead when exiting from rmode to vmode. My idea is that in kvmppc_do_h_enter(), we do a quick check, if the page is right placed, there is no need to exit to vmode (i.e saving htab, slab switching)quoted
quoted
If my suppose is correct, will CCing kvm@vger.kernel.org from next version.This translates to me as "This is an RFC"?Yes, I am not quite sure about it. I have no bare-metal to verify it. So I hope at least, from the theory, it is correct.Paul, could you please give this some thought and maybe benchmark it?
OK, once I get Aneesh to tell me how I get to have ptes with _PAGE_NUMA set in the first place. :) Paul.