On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 1:06 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 03:43:35PM -0700, David Dai wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This patch series is a continuation of the talk Saravana gave at LPC 2022 > > titled "CPUfreq/sched and VM guest workload problems" [1][2][3]. The gist > > of the talk is that workloads running in a guest VM get terrible task > > placement and DVFS behavior when compared to running the same workload in > > the host. Effectively, no EAS for threads inside VMs. This would make power > > and performance terrible just by running the workload in a VM even if we > > assume there is zero virtualization overhead. > > > > We have been iterating over different options for communicating between > > guest and host, ways of applying the information coming from the > > guest/host, etc to figure out the best performance and power improvements > > we could get. > > > > The patch series in its current state is NOT meant for landing in the > > upstream kernel. We are sending this patch series to share the current > > progress and data we have so far. The patch series is meant to be easy to > > cherry-pick and test on various devices to see what performance and power > > benefits this might give for others. > > > > With this series, a workload running in a VM gets the same task placement > > and DVFS treatment as it would when running in the host. > > > > As expected, we see significant performance improvement and better > > performance/power ratio. If anyone else wants to try this out for your VM > > workloads and report findings, that'd be very much appreciated. > > > > The idea is to improve VM CPUfreq/sched behavior by: > > - Having guest kernel to do accurate load tracking by taking host CPU > > arch/type and frequency into account. > > - Sharing vCPU run queue utilization information with the host so that the > > host can do proper frequency scaling and task placement on the host side. > > So, not having actually been send many of the patches I've no idea what > you've done... Please, eradicate this ridiculous idea of sending random > people a random subset of a patch series. Either send all of it or none, > this is a bloody nuisance. Sorry, that was our intention, but had a scripting error. It's been fixed. I have a script to use with git send-email's --to-cmd and --cc-cmd option. It uses get_maintainers.pl to figure out who to email, but it gets trickier for a patch series that spans maintainer trees. v2 and later will have everyone get all the patches. > Having said that; my biggest worry is that you're making scheduler > internals into an ABI. I would hate for this paravirt interface to tie > us down. The only 2 pieces of information shared between host/guest are: 1. Host CPU frequency -- this isn't really scheduler internals and will map nicely to a virtual cpufreq driver. 2. A vCPU util value between 0 - 1024 where 1024 corresponds to the highest performance point across all CPUs (taking freq, arch, etc into consideration). Yes, this currently matches how the run queue util is tracked, but we can document the interface as "percentage of max performance capability", but representing it as 0 - 1024 instead of 0-100. That way, even if the scheduler changes how it tracks util in the future, we can still keep this interface between guest/host and map it appropriately on the host end. In either case, we could even have a Windows guest where they might track vCPU utilization differently and still have this work with the Linux host with this interface. Does that sound reasonable to you? Another option is to convert (2) into a "CPU frequency" request (but without latching it to values in the CPUfreq table) but it'll add some unnecessary math (with division) on the guest and host end. But I'd rather keep it as 0-1024 unless you really want this 2nd option. -Saravana
