Re: [PATCH RFC 0/7] kvm pvtimer

[Quan Xu <quan.xu0@gmail.com>]

On 2017/12/14 19:56, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 13/12/2017 17:28, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> 1) VM idle path and network req/resp services:
>>
>> Does this go away if you don't hit the idle path? Meaning if you
>> loop without hitting HLT/MWAIT? I am assuming the issue you are facing
>> is the latency - that is first time the guest comes from HLT and
>> responds to the packet the latency is much higher than without?
>>
>> And the arming of the timer?
>> 2) process context switches.
>>
>> Is that related to the 1)? That is the 'schedule' call and the process
>> going to sleep waiting for an interrupt or timer?
>>
>> This all sounds like issues with low-CPU usage workloads where you
>> need low latency responses?
> Even high-CPU usage, as long as there is a small idle time.  The cost of
> setting the TSC deadline timer twice is about 3000 cycles.
>
> However, I think Amazon's approach of not intercepting HLT/MWAIT/PAUSE
> can recover most of the performance and it's way less intrusive.

   Paolo, could you share the Amazon's patch or the LML link? thanks.


Quan

> Thanks,
>
> Paolo
>