On 29/08/2019 21:11, Joao Martins wrote:
> On 8/29/19 7:28 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 29/08/2019 20:07, Joao Martins wrote:
>>> On 8/29/19 6:42 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> On 29/08/2019 19:16, Joao Martins wrote:
>>>>> On 8/29/19 4:10 PM, Joao Martins wrote:
>>>>>> When cpus != maxcpus cpuidle-haltpoll will fail to register all vcpus
>>>>>> past the online ones and thus fail to register the idle driver.
>>>>>> This is because cpuidle_add_sysfs() will return with -ENODEV as a
>>>>>> consequence from get_cpu_device() return no device for a non-existing
>>>>>> CPU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead switch to cpuidle_register_driver() and manually register each
>>>>>> of the present cpus through cpuhp_setup_state() callback and future
>>>>>> ones that get onlined. This mimmics similar logic that intel_idle does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: fa86ee90eb11 ("add cpuidle-haltpoll driver")
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> While testing the above, I found out another issue on the haltpoll series.
>>>>> But I am not sure what is best suited to cpuidle framework, hence requesting
>>>>> some advise if below is a reasonable solution or something else is preferred.
>>>>>
>>>>> Essentially after haltpoll governor got introduced and regardless of the cpuidle
>>>>> driver the default governor is gonna be haltpoll for a guest (given haltpoll
>>>>> governor doesn't get registered for baremetal). Right now, for a KVM guest, the
>>>>> idle governors have these ratings:
>>>>>
>>>>> * ladder -> 10
>>>>> * teo -> 19
>>>>> * menu -> 20
>>>>> * haltpoll -> 21
>>>>> * ladder + nohz=off -> 25
>>>>>
>>>>> When a guest is booted with MWAIT and intel_idle is probed and sucessfully
>>>>> registered, we will end up with a haltpoll governor being used as opposed to
>>>>> 'menu' (which used to be the default case). This would prevent IIUC that other
>>>>> C-states get used other than poll_state (state 0) and state 1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that haltpoll governor is largely only useful with a cpuidle-haltpoll
>>>>> it doesn't look reasonable to be the default? What about using haltpoll governor
>>>>> as default when haltpoll idle driver registers or modload.
>>>>
>>>> Are the guest and host kernel the same? IOW compiled with the same
>>>> kernel config?
>>>>
>>> You just need to toggle this (regardless off CONFIG_HALTPOLL_CPUIDLE):
>>>
>>> CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_GOV_HALTPOLL=y
>>>
>>> And *if you are a KVM guest* it will be the default (unless using nohz=off in
>>> which case ladder gets the highest rating -- see the listing right above).
>>>
>>> Host will just behave differently because the haltpoll governor is checking if
>>> it is running as kvm guest, and only registering in that case.
>>
>> I understood the problem. Actually my question was about if the kernels
>> are compiled for host and guest, and can be run indifferently.
>
> /nods Correct.
>
>> In this
>> case a runtime detection must be done as you propose, otherwise that can
>> be done at config time. I pretty sure it is the former but before
>> thinking about the runtime side, I wanted to double check.
>>
> Hmm, but even with separate kernels/configs for guest and host I think we would
> still have the same issue.
>
> What I was trying to convey is that even when running with a config solely for
> KVM guests (that is different than baremetal) you can have today various ways of
> idling. An Intel x86 kvm guest can have no idle driver (but arch-specific),
> intel_idle (like baremetal config) and haltpoll. There are usecases for these
> three, and makes sense to consolidate all.
>
> Say you wanted to have a kvm specific config, you would still see the same
> problem if you happen to compile intel_idle together with haltpoll
> driver+governor.
Can a guest work with an intel_idle driver?
> Creating two separate configs here, with and without haltpoll
> for VMs doesn't sound effective for distros.
Agree
> Perhaps decreasing the rating of
> haltpoll governor, but while a short term fix it wouldn't give much sensible
> defaults without the one-off runtime switch.
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
