Re: [PATCH] kvm-vmx: add module parameter to avoid trapping HLT instructions (v2)

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 12/02/2010 01:14 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Anthony Liguori (aliguori@us.ibm.com) wrote:
>    
>> In certain use-cases, we want to allocate guests fixed time slices where idle
>> guest cycles leave the machine idling.  There are many approaches to achieve
>> this but the most direct is to simply avoid trapping the HLT instruction which
>> lets the guest directly execute the instruction putting the processor to sleep.
>>      
> I like the idea, esp to keep from burning power.
>
>    
>> Introduce this as a module-level option for kvm-vmx.ko since if you do this
>> for one guest, you probably want to do it for all.  A similar option is possible
>> for AMD but I don't have easy access to AMD test hardware.
>>      
> Perhaps it should be a VM level option.  And then invert the notion.
> Create one idle domain w/out hlt trap.  Give that VM a vcpu per pcpu
> (pin in place probably).  And have that VM do nothing other than hlt.
> Then it's always runnable according to scheduler, and can "consume" the
> extra work that CFS wants to give away.
>    

That's an interesting idea.  I think Vatsa had some ideas about how to 
do this with existing mechanisms.

I'm interesting in comparing behavior with fixed allocation because one 
thing the above relies upon is that the filler VM loses it's time when 
one of the non-filler VCPU needs to run.  This may all work correctly 
but I think it's easier to rationalize about having each non-filler VCPU 
have a fixed (long) time slice.  If a VCPU needs to wake up to become 
non-idle, it can do so immediately because it already has the PCPU.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori



> What do you think?
>
> thanks,
> -chris
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>