I noticed that srcu_read_lock/unlock both have a memory barrier,
so just by moving srcu_read_unlock earlier we can get rid of
one call to smp_mb().
Unsurprisingly, the gain is small but measureable using the unit test
microbenchmark:
before
vmcall 1407
after
vmcall 1357
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>
--
I didn't stress test this yet, sending out for early review/flames.
Paul, could you review this patch please?
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt says that unlock has a weaker
uni-directional barrier, but in practice srcu_read_unlock calls
smp_mb().
Is it OK to rely on this? If not, can I add
smp_mb__after_srcu_read_unlock (making it an empty macro for now)
so we can avoid an actual extra smp_mb()?
Thanks.
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index 8617c9d..a48fb36 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -5949,8 +5949,10 @@ restore:
/* We should set ->mode before check ->requests,
* see the comment in make_all_cpus_request.
+ *
+ * srcu_read_unlock below acts as a memory barrier.
*/
- smp_mb();
+ srcu_read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu, vcpu->srcu_idx);
local_irq_disable();
@@ -5960,12 +5962,11 @@ restore:
smp_wmb();
local_irq_enable();
preempt_enable();
+ vcpu->srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu);
r = 1;
goto cancel_injection;
}
- srcu_read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu, vcpu->srcu_idx);
-
if (req_immediate_exit)
smp_send_reschedule(vcpu->cpu);
--
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
