Re: [RFC PATCH V1 04/12] xen/arm: Introduce arch specific bits for IOREQ/DM features

[Oleksandr <olekstysh@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi


> > > > @@ -2275,6 +2282,16 @@ static void check_for_vcpu_work(void)
> > > >    */
> > > >   void leave_hypervisor_to_guest(void)
> > > >   {
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER
> > > > +    /*
> > > > +     * XXX: Check the return. Shall we call that in
> > > > +     * continue_running and context_switch instead?
> > > > +     * The benefits would be to avoid calling
> > > > +     * handle_hvm_io_completion on every return.
> > > > +     */
> > > Yeah, that could be a simple and good optimization
> > Well, it is not simple as it is sounds :). handle_hvm_io_completion() 
> > is the function in charge to mark the vCPU as waiting for I/O. So we 
> > would at least need to split the function.
> > I wrote this TODO because I wasn't sure about the complexity of 
> > handle_hvm_io_completion(current). Looking at it again, the main 
> > complexity is the looping over the IOREQ servers.
> > I think it would be better to optimize handle_hvm_io_completion() 
> > rather than trying to hack the context_switch() or continue_running().
> Well, is the idea in proposed dirty test patch below close to what you 
> expect? Patch optimizes handle_hvm_io_completion() to avoid extra 
> actions if vcpu's domain doesn't have ioreq_server, alternatively
> the check could be moved out of handle_hvm_io_completion() to avoid 
> calling that function at all. BTW, TODO also suggests checking the 
> return value of handle_hvm_io_completion(), but I am completely sure 
> we can simply
> just return from leave_hypervisor_to_guest() at this point. 
Sorry, made a mistake in last sentence).  s / I am completely sure / I 
am not completely sure

--
Regards,

Oleksandr Tyshchenko