linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	Srikar <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	S390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	Carsten Otte <cotte@de.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>,
	"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 <x86@kernel.org>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
	linux390@de.ibm.com,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V4 3/3] kvm: Choose better candidate for directed yield
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:39:09 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50052BB5.2040909@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50052272.5020803@redhat.com>

On 07/17/2012 01:59 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/16/2012 07:10 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On 07/16/2012 06:07 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>>> +{
>>>> +    bool eligible;
>>>> +
>>>> +    eligible = !vcpu->ple.cpu_relax_intercepted ||
>>>> +            (vcpu->ple.cpu_relax_intercepted&&
>>>> +             vcpu->ple.dy_eligible);
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (vcpu->ple.cpu_relax_intercepted)
>>>> +        vcpu->ple.dy_eligible = !vcpu->ple.dy_eligible;
>>>
>>> Probably should assign 'true', since the previous value is essentially
>>> random.
>>
>> I suspect the intended purpose of this conditional is to
>> flip the eligibility of a vcpu for being selected as a
>> direct yield target.
>>
>> In other words, that bit of the code is correct.
>
> If vcpu A is in a long spin loop and is preempted away, and vcpu B dips
> several times in kvm_vcpu_on_spin(), then it will act as intended.

Yes, true.

But
> if vcpu A is spinning for x% of its time and processing on the other,
> then vcpu B will flip its dy_eligible for those x%, and not flip it when
> it's processing.  I don't understand how this is useful.

Suppose A is doing really good job and and has not done pause loop
exit, we will not touch it's dy_eligible flag. Also dy_eligible flag
will not prevent B doing yield_to to A.

Suppose A has started spinning in the beginning itself, it will do pause 
loop exit if it crosses threshold, and we will now start toggling
dy_eligible.

Was that you were referring?

And it seems we may still have to set dy_eligible flag to false at the 
beginning of vcpu_on_spin along with cpu_relax_intercepted = true, like 
below, so that we do not have spill-over status from previous PL exits.

vcpu_on_spin()
{
  cpu_relax_intercepted = true;
  dy_eligible = false;
.
.
.

cpu_relax_intercepted = false;
}

Let me know if that addresses your concern.

>
> I guess this is an attempt to impose fairness on yielding, and it makes
> sense to do this, but I don't know if this is the best way to achieve it.
>


  reply	other threads:[~2012-07-17  9:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-07-16  8:24 [PATCH RFC V4 0/3] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler Raghavendra K T
2012-07-16  8:25 ` [PATCH RFC V4 1/3] kvm/config: Add config to support ple or cpu relax optimzation Raghavendra K T
2012-07-16  8:25 ` [PATCH RFC V4 2/3] kvm: Note down when cpu relax intercepted or pause loop exited Raghavendra K T
2012-07-16 10:01   ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-16 17:24     ` Raghavendra K T
2012-07-17  8:22       ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-17  8:31         ` Raghavendra K T
2012-07-16  8:25 ` [PATCH RFC V4 3/3] kvm: Choose better candidate for directed yield Raghavendra K T
2012-07-16 10:07   ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-16 16:10     ` Rik van Riel
2012-07-16 17:07       ` Raghavendra K T
2012-07-17  8:29       ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-17  9:09         ` Raghavendra K T [this message]
2012-07-18  2:28           ` Raghavendra K T
2012-07-16 17:49     ` Raghavendra K T

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=50052BB5.2040909@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
    --cc=cotte@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=gleb@redhat.com \
    --cc=habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=joerg.roedel@amd.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux390@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).