Re: [PATCH V3 RFC 2/2] kvm: Handle yield_to failure return code for potential undercommit case

[Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> >Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
> 
> Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for
> completeness, forgive me :))
> In moderate overcommits, we can falsely exit from ple handler even when
> we have preempted task of same VM waiting on other cpus. To reduce this
> problem, we try few times before exiting.
> The problem boils down to:
> what is the probability that we exit ple handler even when we have more
> than 1 task in other cpus. Theoretical worst case should be around 1.5x
> overcommit (As also pointed by Andrew Theurer). [But practical
> worstcase may be around 2x,3x overcommits as indicated by the results
> for the patch series]
> 
> So if p is the probability of finding rq length one on a particular cpu,
> and if we do n tries, then probability of exiting ple handler is:
> 
>  p^(n+1) [ because we would have come across one source with rq length
> 1 and n target cpu rqs  with length 1 ]
> 
> so
> num tries:         probability of aborting ple handler (1.5x overcommit)
>  1                 1/4
>  2                 1/8
>  3                 1/16
> 
> We can increase this probability with more tries, but the problem is
> the overhead.
> Also, If we have tried three times that means we would have iterated
> over 3 good eligible vcpus along with many non-eligible candidates. In
> worst case if we iterate all the vcpus, we reduce 1x performance and
> overcommit performance get hit. [ as in results ].
> 
> I have tried num_tries = 1,2,3 and n already ( not 4 yet). So I
> concluded 3 is enough.
> 
> Infact I have also run kernbench and hackbench which are giving 5-20%
> improvement.
> 
> [ As a side note , I also thought how about having num_tries = f(n) =
> ceil ( log(num_online_cpus)/2 ) But I thought calculation is too much
> overhead and also there is no point in probably making it dependent on
> online cpus ]
> 
> Please let me know if you are happy with this rationale/ or correct me
> if you foresee some problem. (Infact Avi, Rik's concern about false
> exiting made me arrive at 'try' logic which I did not have earlier).
> 
> I am currently trying out the result for 1.5x overcommit will post the
> result.

Raghavendra

Makes sense to me. Thanks.