Sounds good. Can you please re-spin the patch, Yunhong? I will drop your
original patch for now.
-- Keir
On 29/03/2010 13:55, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> 29.03.10 14:00 >>>
>> When flush tlb mask, we need consider the cpu_online_map. The same happens to
>> ept flush also.
>
> While the idea is certainly correct, doing this more efficiently seems
> quite desirable to me, especially when NR_CPUS is large:
>
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c Sat Mar 27 16:01:35 2010 +0000
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c Mon Mar 29 17:49:51 2010 +0800
>> @@ -1235,6 +1235,9 @@ void ept_sync_domain(struct domain *d)
>> * unnecessary extra flushes, to avoid allocating a cpumask_t on the
>> stack.
>> */
>> d->arch.hvm_domain.vmx.ept_synced = d->domain_dirty_cpumask;
>> + cpus_and(d->arch.hvm_domain.vmx.ept_synced,
>> + d->arch.hvm_domain.vmx.ept_synced,
>> + cpu_online_map);
>
> The added code can be combined with the pre-existing line:
>
> cpus_and(d->arch.hvm_domain.vmx.ept_synced,
> d->domain_dirty_cpumask, cpu_online_map);
>
>> on_selected_cpus(&d->arch.hvm_domain.vmx.ept_synced,
>> __ept_sync_domain, d, 1);
>> }
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/smp.c Sat Mar 27 16:01:35 2010 +0000
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/smp.c Mon Mar 29 17:47:25 2010 +0800
>> @@ -229,6 +229,7 @@ void flush_area_mask(const cpumask_t *ma
>> {
>> spin_lock(&flush_lock);
>> cpus_andnot(flush_cpumask, *mask, *cpumask_of(smp_processor_id()));
>> + cpus_and(flush_cpumask, cpu_online_map, flush_cpumask);
>
> Here, first doing the full-mask operation and then clearing the one
> extra bit is less overhead:
>
> cpus_and(flush_cpumask, *mask, cpu_online_map);
> cpu_clear(smp_processor_id(), flush_cpumask);
>
>> flush_va = va;
>> flush_flags = flags;
>> send_IPI_mask(&flush_cpumask, INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR);
>
> Jan
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|