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;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com BBCBEC047B6F
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Cc:     "the arch\/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        devel@linuxdriverproject.org,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@microsoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Jork Loeser <Jork.Loeser@microsoft.com>,
        Simon Xiao <sixiao@microsoft.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] Hyper-V: paravirtualized remote TLB flushing and hypercall improvements
References: <20170802160921.21791-1-vkuznets@redhat.com>
        <CANRm+Cz7SgUJ3o2O=uDn+un4JYiqQ-aANhf4tNNArfbv6a_uOQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <87d14vrcou.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
        <CANRm+Cz+0kAFjpGudnoXsPnWzuM2368KDBxivV4Xi-nPwt=dXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 06 Nov 2017 11:10:00 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CANRm+Cz+0kAFjpGudnoXsPnWzuM2368KDBxivV4Xi-nPwt=dXw@mail.gmail.com>
        (Wanpeng Li's message of "Mon, 6 Nov 2017 17:57:04 +0800")
Message-ID: <874lq7ra4n.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> writes:

> 2017-11-06 17:14 GMT+08:00 Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>:
>> Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> 2017-08-03 0:09 GMT+08:00 Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>:
>>>> Changes since v9:
>>>> - Rebase to 4.13-rc3.
>>>> - Drop PATCH1 as it was already taken by Greg to char-misc tree. There're no
>>>>   functional dependencies on this patch so the series can go through a different tree
>>>>   (and it actually belongs to x86 if I got Ingo's comment right).
>>>> - Add in missing void return type in PATCH1 [Colin King, Ingo Molnar, Greg KH]
>>>> - A few minor fixes in what is now PATCH7: add pr_fmt, tiny style fix in
>>>>   hyperv_flush_tlb_others() [Andy Shevchenko]
>>>> - Fix "error: implicit declaration of function 'virt_to_phys'" in PATCH2
>>>>   reported by kbuild test robot (#include <asm/io.h>)
>>>> - Add Steven's 'Reviewed-by:' to PATCH9.
>>>>
>>>> Original description:
>>>>
>>>> Hyper-V supports hypercalls for doing local and remote TLB flushing and
>>>> gives its guests hints when using hypercall is preferred. While doing
>>>> hypercalls for local TLB flushes is probably not practical (and is not
>>>> being suggested by modern Hyper-V versions) remote TLB flush with a
>>>> hypercall brings significant improvement.
>>>>
>>>> To test the series I wrote a special 'TLB trasher': on a 16 vCPU guest I
>>>> was creating 32 threads which were doing 100000 mmap/munmaps each on some
>>>> big file. Here are the results:
>>>>
>>>> Before:
>>>> # time ./pthread_mmap ./randfile
>>>> real    3m33.118s
>>>> user    0m3.698s
>>>> sys     3m16.624s
>>>>
>>>> After:
>>>> # time ./pthread_mmap ./randfile
>>>> real    2m19.920s
>>>> user    0m2.662s
>>>> sys     2m9.948s
>>>>
>>>> This series brings a number of small improvements along the way: fast
>>>> hypercall implementation and using it for event signaling, rep hypercalls
>>>> implementation, hyperv tracing subsystem (which only traces the newly added
>>>> remote TLB flush for now).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Vitaly,
>>>
>>> Could you attach your benchmark? I'm interested in to try the
>>> implementation in paravirt kvm.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, this would be cool) I briefly discussed the idea with Radim (one of
>> KVM maintainers) during the last KVM Forum and he wasn't opposed to the
>> idea. Need to talk to Paolo too. Good thing is that we have everything
>
> I talk with Paolo today and he points this feature to me, so I believe
> he likes it. :) In addition,
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/hyper-v-on-windows/reference/tlfs
> I search Hypervisor Top Level Functional Specification v5.0b.pdf
> document but didn't find a section introduce the Hyper-V:
> paravirtualized remote TLB flushing and hypercall stuff, could you
> point out?
>

It's there, search for
HvFlushVirtualAddressSpace/HvFlushVirtualAddressSpaceEx and
HvFlushVirtualAddressList/HvFlushVirtualAddressListEx.

-- 
  Vitaly

From 1583310285292665571@xxx Mon Nov 06 09:59:13 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1574636603958149385
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread