linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@intel.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/5] KVM: x86: fix periodic lapic timer with hrtimers
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:01:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161026140109.GB3452@potion> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANRm+CzKz1dAMnB4b1OmZyOhpDt92XRyTncuzYbt7pMNkxgT-w@mail.gmail.com>

2016-10-26 14:08+0800, Wanpeng Li:
> 2016-10-26 14:02 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>:
>> 2016-10-25 19:43 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>:
>>> I will have some comments, because it would be nicer if it measured the
>>> latency ... expected_expiration is not computed correctly.
>>
>> It measured the latency from guest programs the clock event device to
>> interrupt injected to guest after timer fire.

No.  It never computed the time when the timer fires, the test measured
the duration of the period.

Imagine that the dashed line below is a timeline.  Pipe is idealized
firing of the periodic timer and caret is the time when the guest read
time in the interrupt.  The number below caret is the latency.

The period is 7.

 --------------------------------------------
 |      |      |      |      |      |      |
  ^       ^       ^    ^       ^     ^      ^
  1       2       3    1       2     1      1

The test would report "latencies" as:

  1       1       1   -2       1    -1      0

because it used now() + period to compute the next expected expiration

Similarly in this case,
 --------------------------------------------
 |      |      |      |      |      |      |
       ^      ^      ^      ^      ^      ^
       6      6      6      6      6      6

The latency is always 6, but the test would report

       6      0      0      0      0      0

And if we improved the latency by 1, you'd only see the difference in
the first number. The test measured the duration of the period.

> When compare this with clock event device which is emulated by
> hrtimer, we can calculate the latency bonus from VMX preemption.

If we know when the timer should have fired, then we can measure the
latency:

  latency = now() - expected_expiration

The hard part is computing expected_expiration() -- it *cannot* be
precise with one-shot or periodic APIC timer, because we don't send
expected_expiration to KVM, but only a delta and KVM sets
expected_expiration based on the delta and some random time when it gets
to set the expected_expiration.

The guest could do

  before = now()
  set_apic_timer(delta)
  after = now()

to get some bounds on the expected expiration -- it would be between
"before + delta" and "after + delta".

  reply	other threads:[~2016-10-26 14:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-10-24 10:23 [PATCH v3 0/5] KVM: LAPIC: Add APIC Timer periodic/oneshot mode VMX preemption timer support Wanpeng Li
2016-10-24 10:23 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] KVM: LAPIC: extract start_sw_period() to handle periodic/oneshot mode Wanpeng Li
2016-10-24 10:23 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] KVM: LAPIC: guarantee the timer is in tsc-deadline mode Wanpeng Li
2016-10-24 10:23 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] KVM: LAPIC: introduce kvm_get_lapic_target_expiration_tsc() Wanpeng Li
2016-10-24 10:23 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] KVM: LAPIC: rename start/cancel_hv_tscdeadline to start/cancel_hv_timer Wanpeng Li
2016-10-24 10:23 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] KVM: LAPIC: add APIC Timer periodic/oneshot mode VMX preemption timer support Wanpeng Li
2016-10-24 14:50   ` Radim Krčmář
2016-10-24 23:33     ` Wanpeng Li
2016-10-24 15:03 ` [PATCH 6/5] KVM: x86: fix periodic lapic timer with hrtimers Radim Krčmář
2016-10-24 15:09   ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-10-24 15:27     ` Radim Krčmář
2016-10-24 23:39       ` Wanpeng Li
2016-10-25 11:43         ` Radim Krčmář
2016-10-25 11:55           ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-10-26  6:02           ` Wanpeng Li
2016-10-26  6:08             ` Wanpeng Li
2016-10-26 14:01               ` Radim Krčmář [this message]
2016-10-27  2:33                 ` Wanpeng Li
2016-10-26 13:32             ` Radim Krčmář
2016-10-27  2:11               ` Wanpeng Li
2016-10-26 10:23           ` Wanpeng Li
2016-10-26 11:15             ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-10-26 11:26               ` Wanpeng Li
     [not found]   ` <SG2PR02MB1550E0FF04F2614BE0E262BC80A80@SG2PR02MB1550.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com>
2016-10-25 13:03     ` Radim Krčmář

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=20161026140109.GB3452@potion \
    --to=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
    --cc=kernellwp@gmail.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=wanpeng.li@hotmail.com \
    --cc=yunhong.jiang@intel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).