From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hp.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow vCPUs kick-ahead
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:39:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150715093924.GH2859@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1436926417-20256-5-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:13:35PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Frequent CPU halting (vmexit) and CPU kicking (vmenter) lengthens
> critical section and block forward progress. This patch implements
> a kick-ahead mechanism where the unlocker will kick the queue head
> vCPUs as well as up to four additional vCPUs next to the queue head
> if they were halted. The kickings are done after exiting the critical
> section to improve parallelism.
>
> The amount of kick-ahead allowed depends on the number of vCPUs
> in the VM guest. This patch, by itself, won't do much as most of
> the kickings are currently done at lock time. Coupled with the next
> patch that defers lock time kicking to unlock time, it should improve
> overall system performance in a busy overcommitted guest.
>
> Linux kernel builds were run in KVM guest on an 8-socket, 4
> cores/socket Westmere-EX system and a 4-socket, 8 cores/socket
> Haswell-EX system. Both systems are configured to have 32 physical
> CPUs. The kernel build times before and after the patch were:
>
> Westmere Haswell
> Patch 32 vCPUs 48 vCPUs 32 vCPUs 48 vCPUs
> ----- -------- -------- -------- --------
> Before patch 3m25.0s 10m34.1s 2m02.0s 15m35.9s
> After patch 3m27.4s 10m32.0s 2m00.8s 14m52.5s
>
> There wasn't too much difference before and after the patch.
That means either the patch isn't worth it, or as you seem to imply its
in the wrong place in this series.
> @@ -224,7 +233,16 @@ static unsigned int pv_lock_hash_bits __read_mostly;
> */
> void __init __pv_init_lock_hash(void)
> {
> - int pv_hash_size = ALIGN(4 * num_possible_cpus(), PV_HE_PER_LINE);
> + int ncpus = num_possible_cpus();
> + int pv_hash_size = ALIGN(4 * ncpus, PV_HE_PER_LINE);
> + int i;
> +
> + /*
> + * The minimum number of vCPUs required in each kick-ahead level
> + */
> + static const u8 kick_ahead_threshold[PV_KICK_AHEAD_MAX] = {
> + 4, 8, 16, 32
> + };
You are aware we have ilog2(), right?
> + /*
> + * Enable the unlock kick ahead mode according to the number of
> + * vCPUs available.
> + */
> + for (i = PV_KICK_AHEAD_MAX; i > 0; i--)
> + if (ncpus >= kick_ahead_threshold[i - 1]) {
> + pv_kick_ahead = i;
> + break;
> + }
That's missing { }.
> + if (pv_kick_ahead)
> + pr_info("PV unlock kick ahead level %d enabled\n",
> + pv_kick_ahead);
Idem.
That said, I still really dislike this patch, it again seems a random
bunch of hacks.
You also do not offer any support for any of the magic numbers..
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-15 9:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-15 2:13 [PATCH 0/6 v2] locking/qspinlock: Enhance pvqspinlock performance Waiman Long
2015-07-15 2:13 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Unconditional PV kick with _Q_SLOW_VAL Waiman Long
2015-07-15 9:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16 0:18 ` Waiman Long
2015-07-16 5:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16 14:07 ` Waiman Long
2015-07-16 15:04 ` Waiman Long
2015-07-16 15:10 ` Will Deacon
2015-08-03 16:59 ` [tip:locking/core] locking/Documentation: Clarify failed cmpxchg( ) memory ordering semantics tip-bot for Will Deacon
2015-08-03 17:36 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-07-15 2:13 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Add pending bit support Waiman Long
2015-07-15 2:13 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Collect slowpath lock statistics Waiman Long
2015-07-15 2:13 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow vCPUs kick-ahead Waiman Long
2015-07-15 9:39 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-07-16 2:01 ` Waiman Long
2015-07-16 5:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16 14:51 ` Waiman Long
2015-07-15 2:13 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Opportunistically defer kicking to unlock time Waiman Long
2015-07-15 6:14 ` Raghavendra K T
2015-07-15 10:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16 2:18 ` Waiman Long
2015-07-16 5:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-15 2:13 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Queue node adaptive spinning Waiman Long
2015-07-15 10:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16 2:13 ` Waiman Long
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=20150715093924.GH2859@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=Waiman.Long@hp.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=doug.hatch@hp.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=scott.norton@hp.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