Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 10 Jun 2019 18:11:00 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To:     Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Cc:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] KVM: Yield to IPI target if necessary
Message-ID: <20190611011100.GB24835@linux.intel.com>
References: <1559178307-6835-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com>
 <20190610143420.GA6594@flask>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20190610143420.GA6594@flask>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 04:34:20PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2019-05-30 09:05+0800, Wanpeng Li:
> > The idea is from Xen, when sending a call-function IPI-many to vCPUs, 
> > yield if any of the IPI target vCPUs was preempted. 17% performance 
> > increasement of ebizzy benchmark can be observed in an over-subscribe 
> > environment. (w/ kvm-pv-tlb disabled, testing TLB flush call-function 
> > IPI-many since call-function is not easy to be trigged by userspace 
> > workload).
> 
> Have you checked if we could gain performance by having the yield as an
> extension to our PV IPI call?
> 
> It would allow us to skip the VM entry/exit overhead on the caller.
> (The benefit of that might be negligible and it also poses a
>  complication when splitting the target mask into several PV IPI
>  hypercalls.)

Tangetially related to splitting PV IPI hypercalls, are there any major
hurdles to supporting shorthand?  Not having to generate the mask for
->send_IPI_allbutself and ->kvm_send_ipi_all seems like an easy to way
shave cycles for affected flows.