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
next prev parent 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