Re: [PATCH 5/6] Drivers: hv: vmbus: distribute subchannels among all vcpus

[Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>]

Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com> writes:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vitaly Kuznetsov [mailto:vkuznets@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 22:28
>> To: KY Srinivasan
>> Cc: Haiyang Zhang; devel@linuxdriverproject.org; linux-
>> kernel@vger.kernel.org; Dexuan Cui
>> Subject: [PATCH 5/6] Drivers: hv: vmbus: distribute subchannels among all
>> vcpus
>>
>> Primary channels are distributed evenly across all vcpus we have. When the
>> host asks us to create subchannels it usually makes us num_cpus-1 offers
>
> Hi Vitaly,
> AFAIK, in the VSP of storvsc, the number of subchannel is
>  (the_number_of_vcpus - 1) / 4.
>
> This means for a 8-vCPU guest, there is only 1 subchannel.
>
> Your new algorithm tends to make the vCPUs with small-number busier:
> e.g., in the 8-vCPU case, assuming we have 4 SCSI controllers:
> vCPU0: scsi0's PrimaryChannel (P)
> vCPU1: scsi0's SubChannel (S) + scsi1's P
> vCPU2: scsi1's S + scsi2's P
> vCPU3: scsi2's S + scsi3's P
> vCPU4: scsi3's S
> vCPU5, 6 and 7 are idle.
>
> In this special case, the existing algorithm is better. :-)
>
> However, I do like this idea in your patch, that is, making sure a device's
> primary/sub channels are assigned to differents vCPUs.

Under special circumstances with the current code we can end up with
having all subchannels on the same vCPU with the primary channel I guess
:-) This is not something common, but possible.

>
> I'm just wondering if we should use an even better (and complex)
> algorithm :-)

The question here is - does sticking to the current vCPU help? If it
does, I can suggest the following (I think I even mentioned that in my
PATCH 00): first we try to find a (sub)channel with target_cpu ==
current_vcpu and only when we fail we do the round robin. I'd like to
hear K.Y.'s opinion here as he's the original author :-)

>
> PS, yeah, for netvsc(HV_NIC_GUID), the number of SC is indeed
> the_number_vcpus -1. I'm not sure about the upcoming HV_ND_GUID --
> maybe it's the same as HV_NIC_GUID.
>
> Thanks,
> -- Dexuan
>
>> and we are supposed to distribute the work evenly among the channel
>>  itself and all its  subchannels. Make sure they are all assigned to
>>  different vcpus.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c b/drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c
>> index 8f2761f..daa6417 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c
>> @@ -270,6 +270,8 @@ static void init_vp_index(struct vmbus_channel
>> *channel,
>>       int i;
>>       bool perf_chn = false;
>>       u32 max_cpus = num_online_cpus();
>> +     struct vmbus_channel *primary = channel->primary_channel, *prev;
>> +     unsigned long flags;
>>
>>       for (i = IDE; i < MAX_PERF_CHN; i++) {
>>               if (!memcmp(type_guid->b, hp_devs[i].guid,
>> @@ -290,7 +292,32 @@ static void init_vp_index(struct vmbus_channel
>> *channel,
>>               channel->target_vp = 0;
>>               return;
>>       }
>> -     cur_cpu = (++next_vp % max_cpus);
>> +
>> +     /*
>> +      * Primary channels are distributed evenly across all vcpus we have.
>> +      * When the host asks us to create subchannels it usually makes us
>> +      * num_cpus-1 offers and we are supposed to distribute the work
>> evenly
>> +      * among the channel itself and all its subchannels. Make sure they
>> are
>> +      * all assigned to different vcpus.
>> +      */
>> +     if (!primary)
>> +             cur_cpu = (++next_vp % max_cpus);
>> +     else {
>> +             /*
>> +              * Let's assign the first subchannel of a channel to the
>> +              * primary->target_cpu+1 and all the subsequent channels
>> to
>> +              * the prev->target_cpu+1.
>> +              */
>> +             spin_lock_irqsave(&primary->lock, flags);
>> +             if (primary->num_sc == 1)
>> +                     cur_cpu = (primary->target_cpu + 1) % max_cpus;
>> +             else {
>> +                     prev = list_prev_entry(channel, sc_list);
>> +                     cur_cpu = (prev->target_cpu + 1) % max_cpus;
>> +             }
>> +             spin_unlock_irqrestore(&primary->lock, flags);
>> +     }
>> +
>>       channel->target_cpu = cur_cpu;
>>       channel->target_vp = hv_context.vp_index[cur_cpu];
>>  }
>> --
>> 1.9.3

-- 
  Vitaly