Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/4] xen/arm: set vpidr on the pcpu where the vcpu will run

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

On 16/02/2018 20:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2018, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi Stefano,
> >
> > On 15/02/18 23:16, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On big.LITTLE systems not all cores have the same midr. Instead of
> > > initializing the vpidr to the boot cpu midr, set it to the value of the
> > > midr of the pcpu where the vcpu will run.
> > >
> > > This way, assuming that the vcpu has been created with the right pcpu
> > > affinity, the guest will be able to read the right vpidr value, matching
> > > the one of the physical cpu.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >    xen/arch/arm/domain.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
> > >    1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
> > > index 532e824..280125f 100644
> > > --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
> > > @@ -315,6 +315,22 @@ static void schedule_tail(struct vcpu *prev)
> > >    static void continue_new_vcpu(struct vcpu *prev)
> > >    {
> > >        current->arch.actlr = READ_SYSREG32(ACTLR_EL1);
> > > +    /*
> > > +     * Default the virtual ID to match the physical.
> > > +     *
> > > +     * In case the big.LITTLE systems, a guest should be created with
> > > +     * cpu affinity set so that all vcpus run on the same kind of pcpus.
> > > +     * Warn if it is not the case.
> > continue_new_vcpu is only called once at domain creation. So this looks
> > pointless to check that here and probably in ctxt_switch_to.
> >
> > But I don't want to see such check at every context switch. This is expensive
> > and we should not impact all the platforms for the benefits of an unsafe
> > configuration.
> >
> > If you really want to do that, then it should only be done when the vCPU is
> > migrating. That will reduce a lot the performance impact.
> I don't want a check for every context switch either. I added it here
> because continue_new_vcpu is only called once per vcpu at domain
> creation -- it is a one time check. vcpus are supposed to be pinned (or
> cpu affinity specified) anyway, so I thought I wouldn't add the check in
> vcpu_migrate too. In any case, I am also happy to remove the check
> completely, as we have already warned the user enough.
If you agree that continue_new_vcpu is only called once per vCPU. Then I 
am not sure to understand the purpose of the check. What are you trying 
to warn the user with that?
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel