public inbox for linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.ibm.com>,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: borntraeger@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, cohuck@redhat.com,
	heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: s390: pending interrupts are unlikely
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:48:37 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b31aef6d-7cf7-c870-5250-02cfd4e29542@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200313124030.99834-1-mimu@linux.ibm.com>

On 13.03.20 13:40, Michael Mueller wrote:
> A statistical analysis shows that in most cases when deliverable_irqs()
> is called, no interrupts are pending. (see: early exit ratio)
> 
> The data was sampled during an iperf3 run over virtio_net
> between one guest and the host.
> 
> deliverable_irqs()
>         called = 3145123
>            by kvm_s390_vcpu_has_irq() = 3005581 (95.56%)
>               by kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable() = 3005578 (95.56%)
>                  by kvm_s390_handle_wait() = 1219331 (38.76%)
>                  by kvm_vcpu_check_block() = 2943565 (93.59%)
>                     by kvm_cpu_block(1) = 2826431 (89.86%)
>                     by kvm_cpu_block(2) = 117136 (3.72%)
>                  by kvm_arch_dy_runnable() = 0 (0%)
>               by kvm_arch_setup_async_pf() = 0 (0%)
>               by handle_stop() = 0 (0%)
>            by kvm_s390_deliver_pending_interrupt() = 139542 (4.43%)
>               irqs_delivered = (0:15917 1:61810 2:1 3:0 4:0 x:0)
>               irqs_pending = (0:15917 1:61722 2:86 3:1 4:0 x:0)
>     early exit = 3021787 (96.07%)
>   pending irqs = 123237 (3.91%)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> index 028167d6eacd..c34d62b4209e 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ static unsigned long deliverable_irqs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	unsigned long active_mask;
>  
>  	active_mask = pending_irqs(vcpu);
> -	if (!active_mask)
> +	if (likely(!active_mask))
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	if (psw_extint_disabled(vcpu))
> 

Is this change even observable in practice? Usually, we do have some
performance numbers backing such micro optimizations. But I guess it
will be fairly hard to get some meaning full numbers backing this ...

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-13 12:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-13 12:40 [PATCH] KVM: s390: pending interrupts are unlikely Michael Mueller
2020-03-13 12:48 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2020-03-13 12:52 ` Christian Borntraeger

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=b31aef6d-7cf7-c870-5250-02cfd4e29542@redhat.com \
    --to=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
    --cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mimu@linux.ibm.com \
    /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