From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Srikar <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
S390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Carsten Otte <cotte@de.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, 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: Re: [PATCH RFC V5 0/3] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:36:40 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120720173640.GA22659@amt.cnet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120718133717.5321.71347.sendpatchset@codeblue.in.ibm.com>
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 07:07:17PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>
> Currently Pause Loop Exit (PLE) handler is doing directed yield to a
> random vcpu on pl-exit. We already have filtering while choosing
> the candidate to yield_to. This change adds more checks while choosing
> a candidate to yield_to.
>
> On a large vcpu guests, there is a high probability of
> yielding to the same vcpu who had recently done a pause-loop exit.
> Such a yield can lead to the vcpu spinning again.
>
> The patchset keeps track of the pause loop exit and gives chance to a
> vcpu which has:
>
> (a) Not done pause loop exit at all (probably he is preempted lock-holder)
>
> (b) vcpu skipped in last iteration because it did pause loop exit, and
> probably has become eligible now (next eligible lock holder)
>
> This concept also helps in cpu relax interception cases which use same handler.
>
> Changes since V4:
> - Naming Change (Avi):
> struct ple ==> struct spin_loop
> cpu_relax_intercepted ==> in_spin_loop
> vcpu_check_and_update_eligible ==> vcpu_eligible_for_directed_yield
> - mark vcpu in spinloop as not eligible to avoid influence of previous exit
>
> Changes since V3:
> - arch specific fix/changes (Christian)
>
> Changes since v2:
> - Move ple structure to common code (Avi)
> - rename pause_loop_exited to cpu_relax_intercepted (Avi)
> - add config HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT (Avi)
> - Drop superfluous curly braces (Ingo)
>
> 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
>
> Future enhancements:
> (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.
>
> Summary: There is a very good improvement for kvm based guest on PLE machine.
> The V5 has huge improvement for kbench.
>
> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
> base_rik stdev patched stdev %improve
> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
> kernbench (time in sec lesser is better)
> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
> 1x 49.2300 1.0171 22.6842 0.3073 117.0233 %
> 2x 91.9358 1.7768 53.9608 1.0154 70.37516 %
> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
>
> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
> ebizzy (records/sec more is better)
> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
> 1x 1129.2500 28.6793 2125.6250 32.8239 88.23334 %
> 2x 1892.3750 75.1112 2377.1250 181.6822 25.61596 %
> +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
>
> Note: The patches are tested on x86.
>
> Links
> V4: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/16/80
> V3: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/12/437
> V2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/10/392
> V1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/9/32
>
> Raghavendra K T (3):
> config: Add config to support ple or cpu relax optimzation
> kvm : Note down when cpu relax intercepted or pause loop exited
> kvm : Choose a better candidate for directed yield
> ---
> arch/s390/kvm/Kconfig | 1 +
> arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig | 1 +
> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> virt/kvm/Kconfig | 3 +++
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-20 17:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-18 13:37 [PATCH RFC V5 0/3] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler Raghavendra K T
2012-07-18 13:37 ` [PATCH RFC V5 1/3] kvm/config: Add config to support ple or cpu relax optimzation Raghavendra K T
2012-07-18 13:37 ` [PATCH RFC V5 2/3] kvm: Note down when cpu relax intercepted or pause loop exited Raghavendra K T
2012-07-18 13:38 ` [PATCH RFC V5 3/3] kvm: Choose better candidate for directed yield Raghavendra K T
2012-07-18 14:39 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-07-19 9:47 ` [RESEND PATCH " Raghavendra K T
2012-07-20 17:36 ` Marcelo Tosatti [this message]
2012-07-22 12:34 ` [PATCH RFC V5 0/3] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler Raghavendra K T
2012-07-22 12:43 ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-23 7:35 ` Christian Borntraeger
2012-07-22 17:58 ` Rik van Riel
2012-07-23 10:03 ` Avi Kivity
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=20120720173640.GA22659@amt.cnet \
--to=mtosatti@redhat.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=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.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).