On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 21:04, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 11/09/19 06:25, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 9/10/19 6:56 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 18:56, Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On 9/9/19 2:40 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >>>> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> This patch reverts commit 75437bb304b20 (locking/pvqspinlock: Don't wait if
> >>>> vCPU is preempted), we found great regression caused by this commit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Xeon Skylake box, 2 sockets, 40 cores, 80 threads, three VMs, each is 80 vCPUs.
> >>>> The score of ebizzy -M can reduce from 13000-14000 records/s to 1700-1800
> >>>> records/s with this commit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Host Guest score
> >>>>
> >>>> vanilla + w/o kvm optimizes vanilla 1700-1800 records/s
> >>>> vanilla + w/o kvm optimizes vanilla + revert 13000-14000 records/s
> >>>> vanilla + w/ kvm optimizes vanilla 4500-5000 records/s
> >>>> vanilla + w/ kvm optimizes vanilla + revert 14000-15500 records/s
> >>>>
> >>>> Exit from aggressive wait-early mechanism can result in yield premature and
> >>>> incur extra scheduling latency in over-subscribe scenario.
> >>>>
> >>>> kvm optimizes:
> >>>> [1] commit d73eb57b80b (KVM: Boost vCPUs that are delivering interrupts)
> >>>> [2] commit 266e85a5ec9 (KVM: X86: Boost queue head vCPU to mitigate lock waiter preemption)
> >>>>
> >>>> Tested-by: loobinliu@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Cc: loobinliu@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Fixes: 75437bb304b20 (locking/pvqspinlock: Don't wait if vCPU is preempted)
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h | 2 +-
> >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> >>>> index 89bab07..e84d21a 100644
> >>>> --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> >>>> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> >>>> @@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ pv_wait_early(struct pv_node *prev, int loop)
> >>>> if ((loop & PV_PREV_CHECK_MASK) != 0)
> >>>> return false;
> >>>>
> >>>> - return READ_ONCE(prev->state) != vcpu_running || vcpu_is_preempted(prev->cpu);
> >>>> + return READ_ONCE(prev->state) != vcpu_running;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> /*
> >>> There are several possibilities for this performance regression:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Multiple vcpus calling vcpu_is_preempted() repeatedly may cause some
> >>> cacheline contention issue depending on how that callback is implemented.
> >>>
> >>> 2) KVM may set the preempt flag for a short period whenver an vmexit
> >>> happens even if a vmenter is executed shortly after. In this case, we
> >>> may want to use a more durable vcpu suspend flag that indicates the vcpu
> >>> won't get a real vcpu back for a longer period of time.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps you can add a lock event counter to count the number of
> >>> wait_early events caused by vcpu_is_preempted() being true to see if it
> >>> really cause a lot more wait_early than without the vcpu_is_preempted()
> >>> call.
> >> pv_wait_again:1:179
> >> pv_wait_early:1:189429
> >> pv_wait_head:1:263
> >> pv_wait_node:1:189429
> >> pv_vcpu_is_preempted:1:45588
> >> =========sleep 5============
> >> pv_wait_again:1:181
> >> pv_wait_early:1:202574
> >> pv_wait_head:1:267
> >> pv_wait_node:1:202590
> >> pv_vcpu_is_preempted:1:46336
> >>
> >> The sampling period is 5s, 6% of wait_early events caused by
> >> vcpu_is_preempted() being true.
> >
> > 6% isn't that high. However, when one vCPU voluntarily releases its
> > vCPU, all the subsequently waiters in the queue will do the same. It is
> > a cascading effect. Perhaps we wait early too aggressive with the
> > original patch.
> >
> > I also look up the email chain of the original commit. The patch
> > submitter did not provide any performance data to support this change.
> > The patch just looked reasonable at that time. So there was no
> > objection. Given that we now have hard evidence that this was not a good
> > idea. I think we should revert it.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Longman
> >
>
> Queued, thanks.
Didn't see it in yesterday's updated kvm/queue. :)
Wanpeng
