Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] x86/idle: add halt poll support

Wanpeng Li
2017-09-14T09:20:03Z

2017-09-14 16:36 GMT+08:00 Quan Xu <quan.xu0@gmail.com>:
>
>
> on 2017/9/13 19:56, Yang Zhang wrote:
>>
>> On 2017/8/29 22:56, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:46:34AM +0000, Yang Zhang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Some latency-intensive workload will see obviously performance
>>>> drop when running inside VM.
>>>
>>>
>>> But are we trading a lot of CPU for a bit of lower latency?
>>>
>>>> The main reason is that the overhead
>>>> is amplified when running inside VM. The most cost i have seen is
>>>> inside idle path.
>>>>
>>>> This patch introduces a new mechanism to poll for a while before
>>>> entering idle state. If schedule is needed during poll, then we
>>>> don't need to goes through the heavy overhead path.
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't it the job of an idle driver to find the best way to
>>> halt the CPU?
>>>
>>> It looks like just by adding a cstate we can make it
>>> halt at higher latencies only. And at lower latencies,
>>> if it's doing a good job we can hopefully use mwait to
>>> stop the CPU.
>>>
>>> In fact I have been experimenting with exactly that.
>>> Some initial results are encouraging but I could use help
>>> with testing and especially tuning. If you can help
>>> pls let me know!
>>
>>
>> Quan, Can you help to test it and give result? Thanks.
>>
>
> Hi, MST
>
> I have tested the patch "intel_idle: add pv cstates when running on kvm" on
> a recent host that allows guests
> to execute mwait without an exit. also I have tested our patch "[RFC PATCH
> v2 0/7] x86/idle: add halt poll support",
> upstream linux, and idle=poll.
>
> the following is the result (which seems better than ever berfore, as I ran
> test case on a more powerful machine):
>
> for __netperf__, the first column is trans. rate per sec, the second column
> is CPU utilzation.
>
> 1. upstream linux

This "upstream linux" means that disables the kvm adaptive
halt-polling after confirm with Xu Quan.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li

>
> 28371.7 bits/s -- 76.6 %CPU
>
> 2. idle=poll
>
> 34372 bit/s -- 999.3 %CPU
>
> 3. "[RFC PATCH v2 0/7] x86/idle: add halt poll support", with different
> values of parameter 'halt_poll_threshold':
>
> 28362.7 bits/s -- 74.7 %CPU (halt_poll_threshold=10000)
> 32949.5 bits/s -- 82.5 %CPU (halt_poll_threshold=20000)
> 39717.9 bits/s -- 104.1 %CPU (halt_poll_threshold=30000)
> 40137.9 bits/s -- 104.4 %CPU (halt_poll_threshold=40000)
> 40079.8 bits/s -- 105.6 %CPU (halt_poll_threshold=50000)
>
>
> 4. "intel_idle: add pv cstates when running on kvm"
>
> 33041.8 bits/s -- 999.4 %CPU
>
>
>
>
>
> for __ctxsw__, the first column is the time per process context switches,
> the second column is CPU utilzation..
>
> 1. upstream linux
>
> 3624.19 ns/ctxsw -- 191.9 %CPU
>
> 2. idle=poll
>
> 3419.66 ns/ctxsw -- 999.2 %CPU
>
> 3. "[RFC PATCH v2 0/7] x86/idle: add halt poll support", with different
> values of parameter 'halt_poll_threshold':
>
> 1123.40 ns/ctxsw -- 199.6 %CPU (halt_poll_threshold=10000)
> 1127.38 ns/ctxsw -- 199.7 %CPU (halt_poll_threshold=20000)
> 1113.58 ns/ctxsw -- 199.6 %CPU (halt_poll_threshold=30000)
> 1117.12 ns/ctxsw -- 199.6 %CPU (halt_poll_threshold=40000)
> 1121.62 ns/ctxsw -- 199.6 %CPU (halt_poll_threshold=50000)
>
> 4. "intel_idle: add pv cstates when running on kvm"
>
> 3427.59 ns/ctxsw -- 999.4 %CPU
>
> -Quan