[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/vmx: Rewrite vmx_sync_pir_to_irr() to be more efficient
On 28/08/2024 10:19 am, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 27.08.2024 15:57, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> There are two issues. First, pi_test_and_clear_on() pulls the cache-line to >> the CPU and dirties it even if there's nothing outstanding, but the final >> for_each_set_bit() is O(256) when O(8) would do, > Nit: That's bitmap_for_each() now, I think. And again ... > >> and would avoid multiple >> atomic updates to the same IRR word. >> >> Rewrite it from scratch, explaining what's going on at each step. >> >> Bloat-o-meter reports 177 -> 145 (net -32), but the better aspect is the >> removal calls to __find_{first,next}_bit() hidden behind for_each_set_bit(). > ... here, and no underscore prefixes on the two find functions. Yes, and fixed. > >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c >> @@ -2317,18 +2317,72 @@ static void cf_check vmx_deliver_posted_intr(struct >> vcpu *v, u8 vector) >> >> static void cf_check vmx_sync_pir_to_irr(struct vcpu *v) >> { >> - struct vlapic *vlapic = vcpu_vlapic(v); >> - unsigned int group, i; >> - DECLARE_BITMAP(pending_intr, X86_NR_VECTORS); >> + struct pi_desc *desc = &v->arch.hvm.vmx.pi_desc; >> + union { >> + uint64_t _64[X86_NR_VECTORS / (sizeof(uint64_t) * 8)]; > Using unsigned long here would imo be better, as that's what matches > struct pi_desc's DECLARE_BITMAP(). Why? It was also the primary contribution to particularly-bad code generation in this function. > >> + uint32_t _32[X86_NR_VECTORS / (sizeof(uint32_t) * 8)]; >> + } vec; >> + uint32_t *irr; >> + bool on; >> >> - if ( !pi_test_and_clear_on(&v->arch.hvm.vmx.pi_desc) ) >> + /* >> + * The PIR is a contended cacheline which bounces between the CPU(s) and >> + * IOMMU(s). An IOMMU updates the entire PIR atomically, but we can't >> + * express the same on the CPU side, so care has to be taken. >> + * >> + * First, do a plain read of ON. If the PIR hasn't been modified, this >> + * will keep the cacheline Shared and not pull it Excusive on the >> current >> + * CPU. >> + */ >> + if ( !pi_test_on(desc) ) >> return; >> >> - for ( group = 0; group < ARRAY_SIZE(pending_intr); group++ ) >> - pending_intr[group] = pi_get_pir(&v->arch.hvm.vmx.pi_desc, group); >> + /* >> + * Second, if the plain read said that ON was set, we must clear it with >> + * an atomic action. This will bring the cachline to Exclusive on the > Nit (from my spell checker): cacheline. > >> + * current CPU. >> + * >> + * This should always succeed because noone else should be playing with >> + * the PIR behind our back, but assert so just in case. >> + */ >> + on = pi_test_and_clear_on(desc); >> + ASSERT(on); >> + >> + /* >> + * The cacheline is now Exclusive on the current CPU, and because ON was > "is" is pretty ambitious. We can only hope it (still) is. I can't think of a clearer way of saying this. "will have become Exclusive" perhaps, but this is getting into some subtle tense gymnastics. >> + * get it back again. >> + */ >> + for ( unsigned int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vec._64); ++i ) >> + vec._64[i] = xchg(&desc->pir[i], 0); >> + >> + /* >> + * Finally, merge the pending vectors into IRR. The IRR register is >> + * scattered in memory, so we have to do this 32 bits at a time. >> + */ >> + irr = (uint32_t *)&vcpu_vlapic(v)->regs->data[APIC_IRR]; >> + for ( unsigned int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vec._32); ++i ) >> + { >> + if ( !vec._32[i] ) >> + continue; >> >> - bitmap_for_each ( i, pending_intr, X86_NR_VECTORS ) >> - vlapic_set_vector(i, &vlapic->regs->data[APIC_IRR]); >> + asm ( "lock or %[val], %[irr]" >> + : [irr] "+m" (irr[i * 0x10]) > This wants to be irr * 4 only, to account for sizeof(*irr) == 4. Ah, that will be where the AlderLake interrupts are disappearing to. ~Andrew
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |