[PATCH v2 00/21] arm64: KVM: world switch in C

[Christoffer Dall]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:58:23AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 30/11/15 20:33, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 06:49:54PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> Once upon a time, the KVM/arm64 world switch was a nice, clean, lean
> >> and mean piece of hand-crafted assembly code. Over time, features have
> >> crept in, the code has become harder to maintain, and the smallest
> >> change is a pain to introduce. The VHE patches are a prime example of
> >> why this doesn't work anymore.
> >>
> >> This series rewrites most of the existing assembly code in C, but keeps
> >> the existing code structure in place (most function names will look
> >> familiar to the reader). The biggest change is that we don't have to
> >> deal with a static register allocation (the compiler does it for us),
> >> we can easily follow structure and pointers, and only the lowest level
> >> is still in assembly code. Oh, and a negative diffstat.
> >>
> >> There is still a healthy dose of inline assembly (system register
> >> accessors, runtime code patching), but I've tried not to make it too
> >> invasive. The generated code, while not exactly brilliant, doesn't
> >> look too shaby. I do expect a small performance degradation, but I
> >> believe this is something we can improve over time (my initial
> >> measurements don't show any obvious regression though).
> > 
> > I ran this through my experimental setup on m400 and got this:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > What this tells me is that we do take a noticable hit on the
> > world-switch path, which shows up in the TCP_RR and hackbench workloads,
> > which have a high precision in their output.
> > 
> > Note that the memcached number is well within its variability between
> > individual benchmark runs, where it varies to 12% of its average in over
> > 80% of the executions.
> > 
> > I don't think this is a showstopper thought, but we could consider
> > looking more closely at a breakdown of the world-switch path and verify
> > if/where we are really taking a hit.
> 
> Thanks for doing so, very interesting. As a data point, what compiler
> are you using? I'd expect some variability based on the compiler version...
> 
I used the following (compiling natively on the m400):

gcc version 4.8.2 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.8.2-19ubuntu1)


-Christoffer