On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 20:50, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 12/08/19 11:06, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 18:24, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 09/08/19 07:45, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >>> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> Even if for realtime CPUs, cache line bounces, frequency scaling, presence
> >>> of higher-priority RT tasks, etc can cause different response. These
> >>> interferences should be considered and periodically revaluate whether
> >>> or not the lapic_timer_advance_ns value is the best, do nothing if it is,
> >>> otherwise recaluate again.
> >>
> >> How much fluctuation do you observe between different runs?
> >
> > Sometimes can ~1000 cycles after converting to guest tsc freq.
>
> Hmm, I wonder if we need some kind of continuous smoothing. Something like
Actually this can fluctuate drastically instead of continuous
smoothing during testing (running linux guest instead of
kvm-unit-tests).
>
> if (abs(advance_expire_delta) < LAPIC_TIMER_ADVANCE_ADJUST_DONE) {
> /* no update for random fluctuations */
> return;
> }
>
> if (unlikely(timer_advance_ns > 5000))
> timer_advance_ns = LAPIC_TIMER_ADVANCE_ADJUST_INIT;
> apic->lapic_timer.timer_advance_ns = timer_advance_ns;
>
> and removing all the timer_advance_adjust_done stuff. What do you think?
I just sent out v2, periodically revaluate and get a minimal
conservative value from these revaluate points. Please have a look. :)
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
