On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 1:25 PM, David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08.08.2017 06:05, Longpeng(Mike) wrote: >> This is a simple optimization for kvm_vcpu_on_spin, the >> main idea is described in patch-1's commit msg. >> >> I did some tests base on the RFC version, the result shows >> that it can improves the performance slightly. >> >> == Geekbench-3.4.1 == >> VM1: 8U,4G, vcpu(0...7) is 1:1 pinned to pcpu(6...11,18,19) >> running Geekbench-3.4.1 *10 truns* >> VM2/VM3/VM4: configure is the same as VM1 >> stress each vcpu usage(seed by top in guest) to 40% >> >> The comparison of each testcase's score: >> (higher is better) >> before after improve >> Inter >> single 1176.7 1179.0 0.2% >> multi 3459.5 3426.5 -0.9% >> Float >> single 1150.5 1150.9 0.0% >> multi 3364.5 3391.9 0.8% >> Memory(stream) >> single 1768.7 1773.1 0.2% >> multi 2511.6 2557.2 1.8% >> Overall >> single 1284.2 1286.2 0.2% >> multi 3231.4 3238.4 0.2% >> >> >> == kernbench-0.42 == >> VM1: 8U,12G, vcpu(0...7) is 1:1 pinned to pcpu(6...11,18,19) >> running "kernbench -n 10" >> VM2/VM3/VM4: configure is the same as VM1 >> stress each vcpu usage(seed by top in guest) to 40% >> >> The comparison of 'Elapsed Time': >> (sooner is better) >> before after improve >> load -j4 12.762 12.751 0.1% >> load -j32 9.743 8.955 8.1% >> load -j 9.688 9.229 4.7% >> >> >> Physical Machine: >> Architecture: x86_64 >> CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit >> Byte Order: Little Endian >> CPU(s): 24 >> On-line CPU(s) list: 0-23 >> Thread(s) per core: 2 >> Core(s) per socket: 6 >> Socket(s): 2 >> NUMA node(s): 2 >> Vendor ID: GenuineIntel >> CPU family: 6 >> Model: 45 >> Model name: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 0 @ 2.50GHz >> Stepping: 7 >> CPU MHz: 2799.902 >> BogoMIPS: 5004.67 >> Virtualization: VT-x >> L1d cache: 32K >> L1i cache: 32K >> L2 cache: 256K >> L3 cache: 15360K >> NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-5,12-17 >> NUMA node1 CPU(s): 6-11,18-23 >> >> --- >> Changes since V1: >> - split the implementation of s390 & arm. [David] >> - refactor the impls according to the suggestion. [Paolo] >> >> Changes since RFC: >> - only cache result for X86. [David & Cornlia & Paolo] >> - add performance numbers. [David] >> - impls arm/s390. [Christoffer & David] >> - refactor the impls. [me] >> >> --- >> Longpeng(Mike) (4): >> KVM: add spinlock optimization framework >> KVM: X86: implement the logic for spinlock optimization >> KVM: s390: implements the kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel() >> KVM: arm: implements the kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel() >> >> arch/arm/kvm/handle_exit.c | 2 +- >> arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c | 2 +- >> arch/mips/kvm/mips.c | 6 ++++++ >> arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c | 6 ++++++ >> arch/s390/kvm/diag.c | 2 +- >> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 6 ++++++ >> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 5 +++++ >> arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c | 2 +- >> arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 10 +++++++++- >> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 16 +++++++++++++++- >> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 11 +++++++++++ >> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 3 ++- >> virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 5 +++++ >> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 4 +++- >> 14 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> > > I am curious, is there any architecture that allows to trigger > kvm_vcpu_on_spin(vcpu); while _not_ in kernel mode? > > I would have guessed that user space should never be allowed to make cpu > wide decisions (giving up the CPU to the hypervisor). > > E.g. s390x diag can only be executed from kernel space. VMX PAUSE is > only valid from kernel space. > > I.o.w. do we need a parameter to kvm_vcpu_on_spin(vcpu); at all, or is > "me_in_kernel" basically always true? > ARM can be configured to not trap WFE in userspace. Thanks, -Christoffer
