From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752623Ab2GIHzW (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2012 03:55:22 -0400 Received: from e06smtp18.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.114]:56991 "EHLO e06smtp18.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752238Ab2GIHzU (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2012 03:55:20 -0400 Message-ID: <4FFA8E5E.3070108@de.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:55:10 +0200 From: Christian Borntraeger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Raghavendra K T CC: "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Marcelo Tosatti , Ingo Molnar , Avi Kivity , Rik van Riel , S390 , Carsten Otte , KVM , chegu vinod , "Andrew M. Theurer" , LKML , X86 , Gleb Natapov , linux390@de.ibm.com, Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler References: <20120709062012.24030.37154.sendpatchset@codeblue> In-Reply-To: <20120709062012.24030.37154.sendpatchset@codeblue> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit x-cbid: 12070907-6892-0000-0000-0000025EE808 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/07/12 08:20, Raghavendra K T wrote: > Currently Pause Looop Exit (PLE) handler is doing directed yield to a > random VCPU on PL exit. Though we already have filtering while choosing > the candidate to yield_to, we can do better. > > Problem is, for large vcpu guests, we have more probability of yielding > to a bad vcpu. We are not able to prevent directed yield to same guy who > has done PL exit recently, who perhaps spins again and wastes CPU. > > Fix that by keeping track of who has done PL exit. So The Algorithm in series > give chance to a VCPU which has: We could do the same for s390. The appropriate exit would be diag44 (yield to hypervisor). Almost all s390 kernels use diag9c (directed yield to a given guest cpu) for spinlocks, though. So there is no win here, but there are other cases were diag44 is used, e.g. cpu_relax. I have to double check with others, if these cases are critical, but for now, it seems that your dummy implementation for s390 is just fine. After all it is a no-op until we implement something. Thanks Christian