Re: [PATCH v2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is_preempted() a callee-save function
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Date: 2017-02-10 18:06:51
Also in:
kvm, linux-arch, lkml
On 02/10/2017 11:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:43:09AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:quoted
It was found when running fio sequential write test with a XFS ramdisk on a VM running on a 2-socket x86-64 system, the %CPU times as reported by perf were as follows: 69.75% 0.59% fio [k] down_write 69.15% 0.01% fio [k] call_rwsem_down_write_failed 67.12% 1.12% fio [k] rwsem_down_write_failed 63.48% 52.77% fio [k] osq_lock 9.46% 7.88% fio [k] __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempt 3.93% 3.93% fio [k] __kvm_vcpu_is_preemptedThinking about this again, wouldn't something like the below also work?diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c index 099fcba4981d..6aa33702c15c 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c@@ -589,6 +589,7 @@ static void kvm_wait(u8 *ptr, u8 val) local_irq_restore(flags); } +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 __visible bool __kvm_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) { struct kvm_steal_time *src = &per_cpu(steal_time, cpu);@@ -597,6 +598,31 @@ __visible bool __kvm_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) } PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(__kvm_vcpu_is_preempted); +#else + +extern bool __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted(int); + +asm( +".pushsection .text;" +".global __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted;" +".type __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted, @function;" +"__raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted:" +FRAME_BEGIN +"push %rdi;" +"push %rdx;" +"movslq %edi, %rdi;" +"movq $steal_time+16, %rax;" +"movq __per_cpu_offset(,%rdi,8), %rdx;" +"cmpb $0, (%rdx,%rax);" +"setne %al;" +"pop %rdx;" +"pop %rdi;" +FRAME_END +"ret;" +".popsection"); + +#endif + /* * Setup pv_lock_ops to exploit KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT if present. */
That should work for now. I have done something similar for __pv_queued_spin_unlock. However, this has the problem of creating a dependency on the exact layout of the steal_time structure. Maybe the constant 16 can be passed in as a parameter offsetof(struct kvm_steal_time, preempted) to the asm call. Cheers, Longman