lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/6] KVM: X86: Implement PV IPIs in linux guest
2018-07-19 18:47+0200, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 19/07/2018 18:28, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> >> +
> >> + kvm_hypercall3(KVM_HC_SEND_IPI, ipi_bitmap_low, ipi_bitmap_high, vector);
> > and
> >
> > kvm_hypercall3(KVM_HC_SEND_IPI, ipi_bitmap[0], ipi_bitmap[1], vector);
> >
> > Still, the main problem is that we can only address 128 APICs.
> >
> > A simple improvement would reuse the vector field (as we need only 8
> > bits) and put a 'offset' in the rest. The offset would say which
> > cluster of 128 are we addressing. 24 bits of offset results in 2^31
> > total addressable CPUs (we probably should even use that many bits).
> > The downside of this is that we can only address 128 at a time.
> >
> > It's basically the same as x2apic cluster mode, only with 128 cluster
> > size instead of 16, so the code should be a straightforward port.
> > And because x2apic code doesn't seem to use any division by the cluster
> > size, we could even try to use kvm_hypercall4, add ipi_bitmap[2], and
> > make the cluster size 192. :)
>
> I did suggest an offset earlier in the discussion.
>
> The main problem is that consecutive CPU ids do not map to consecutive
> APIC ids. But still, we could do an hypercall whenever the total range
> exceeds 64. Something like

Right, the cluster x2apic implementation came with a second mapping to make
this in linear time and send as little IPIs as possible:

· /* Collapse cpus in a cluster so a single IPI per cluster is sent */
· for_each_cpu(cpu, tmpmsk) {
· · struct cluster_mask *cmsk = per_cpu(cluster_masks, cpu);

· · dest = 0;
· · for_each_cpu_and(clustercpu, tmpmsk, &cmsk->mask)
· · · dest |= per_cpu(x86_cpu_to_logical_apicid, clustercpu);

· · if (!dest)
· · · continue;

· · __x2apic_send_IPI_dest(dest, vector, apic->dest_logical);
· · /* Remove cluster CPUs from tmpmask */
· · cpumask_andnot(tmpmsk, tmpmsk, &cmsk->mask);
· }

I think that the extra memory consumption would be excusable.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-19 19:23    [W:0.120 / U:8.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site