From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: S390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Carsten Otte <cotte@de.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>,
"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 <x86@kernel.org>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
linux390@de.ibm.com,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC V2 0/2] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:00:57 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120710193056.16440.40112.sendpatchset@codeblue> (raw)
Currently Pause Looop Exit (PLE) handler is doing directed yield to a
random VCPU on PL exit. Though we already have filtering while choosing
the candidate to yield_to, we can do better.
Problem is, for large vcpu guests, we have more probability of yielding
to a bad vcpu. We are not able to prevent directed yield to same guy who
has done PL exit recently, who perhaps spins again and wastes CPU.
Fix that by keeping track of who has done PL exit. So The Algorithm in series
give chance to a VCPU which has:
(a) Not done PLE exit at all (probably he is preempted lock-holder)
(b) VCPU skipped in last iteration because it did PL exit, and probably
has become eligible now (next eligible lock holder)
Future enhancemnets:
(1) Currently we have a boolean to decide on eligibility of vcpu. It
would be nice if I get feedback on guest (>32 vcpu) whether we can
improve better with integer counter. (with counter = say f(log n )).
(2) We have not considered system load during iteration of vcpu. With
that information we can limit the scan and also decide whether schedule()
is better. [ I am able to use #kicked vcpus to decide on this But may
be there are better ideas like information from global loadavg.]
(3) We can exploit this further with PV patches since it also knows about
next eligible lock-holder.
Changes since V1:
- Add more documentation for structure and algorithm and Rename
plo ==> ple (Rik).
- change dy_eligible initial value to false. (otherwise very first directed
yield will not be skipped. (Nikunj)
- fixup signoff/from issue
Summary: There is a very good improvement for moderate / no overcommit scenario
for kvm based guest on PLE machine (which is difficult ;) ).
kernbench sysbench ebizzy
1x 28 % -0.04 % 105 %
2x 7 % 0.83 % 26 %
---
Link for V1: (It also has result)
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/9/32
Raghavendra K T (2):
kvm vcpu: Note down pause loop exit
kvm PLE handler: Choose better candidate for directed yield
arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 5 +++++
arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 13 ++++++++++++-
arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 1 +
arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 1 +
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 3 +++
6 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
next reply other threads:[~2012-07-10 19:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-10 19:30 Raghavendra K T [this message]
2012-07-10 19:31 ` [PATCH RFC V2 1/2] kvm vcpu: Note down pause loop exit Raghavendra K T
2012-07-10 19:40 ` Rik van Riel
2012-07-10 19:31 ` [PATCH RFC V2 2/2] kvm PLE handler: Choose better candidate for directed yield Raghavendra K T
2012-07-10 19:40 ` Rik van Riel
2012-07-10 20:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-07-11 3:00 ` Raghavendra K T
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120710193056.16440.40112.sendpatchset@codeblue \
--to=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
--cc=cotte@de.ibm.com \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=joerg.roedel@amd.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux390@de.ibm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).