> What's the differences wrt retry 1?
I'm using git format-patch as you requested.
> > This feature creates a new field in the VMCB called Pause
> > Filter Count. If Pause Filter Count is greater than 0 and
> > intercepting PAUSEs is enabled, the processor will increment
> > an internal counter when a PAUSE instruction occurs instead
> > of intercepting. When the internal counter reaches the
> > Pause Filter Count value, a PAUSE intercept will occur.
> >
> > This feature can be used to detect contended spinlocks,
> > especially when the lock holding VCPU is not scheduled.
> > Rescheduling another VCPU prevents the VCPU seeking the
> > lock from wasting its quantum by spinning idly.
> >
> > Experimental results show that most spinlocks are held
> > for less than 1000 PAUSE cycles or more than a few
> > thousand. Default the Pause Filter Counter to 3000 to
> > detect the contended spinlocks.
>
> 3000.
Thanks, I keep missing that.
> > On a 24 core system running 4 guests each with 16 VCPUs,
> > this patch improved overall performance of each guest's
> > 32 job kernbench by approximately 1%. Further performance
> > improvement may be possible with a more sophisticated
> > yield algorithm.
> >
>
> Like I mentioned earlier, I don't think schedule() does
> anything on CFS.
>
> Try sched_yield(), but set /proc/sys/kernel/sched_compat_yield.
Will do.
> > +static int pause_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm, struct
> kvm_run *kvm_run)
> > +{
> > + /* Simple yield */
> > + vcpu_put(&svm->vcpu);
> > + schedule();
> > + vcpu_load(&svm->vcpu);
> > + return 1;
> > +}
> > +
> >
>
> You don't need to vcpu_put() and vcpu_load(). The scheduler
> will call them for you if/when it switches tasks.
I was waiting for feedback from Ingo on that issue, but I'll
try sched_yield() instead.
-Mark Langsdorf
Operating System Research Center
AMD
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
