On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 02:36:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 17:22 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > On 09/24/2012 05:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2012-09-21 at 17:29 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > >> In some special scenarios like #vcpu<= #pcpu, PLE handler may
> > >> prove very costly, because there is no need to iterate over vcpus
> > >> and do unsuccessful yield_to burning CPU.
> > >
> > > What's the costly thing? The vm-exit, the yield (which should be a nop
> > > if its the only task there) or something else entirely?
> > >
> > Both vmexit and yield_to() actually,
> >
> > because unsuccessful yield_to() overall is costly in PLE handler.
> >
> > This is because when we have large guests, say 32/16 vcpus, and one
> > vcpu is holding lock, rest of the vcpus waiting for the lock, when they
> > do PL-exit, each of the vcpu try to iterate over rest of vcpu list in
> > the VM and try to do directed yield (unsuccessful). (O(n^2) tries).
> >
> > this results is fairly high amount of cpu burning and double run queue
> > lock contention.
> >
> > (if they were spinning probably lock progress would have been faster).
> > As Avi/Chegu Vinod had felt it is better to avoid vmexit itself, which
> > seems little complex to achieve currently.
>
> OK, so the vmexit stays and we need to improve yield_to.
Can't we do this check sooner as well, as it only requires per-cpu data?
If we do it way back in kvm_vcpu_on_spin, then we avoid get_pid_task()
and a bunch of read barriers from kvm_for_each_vcpu. Also, moving the test
into kvm code would allow us to do other kvm things as a result of the
check in order to avoid some vmexits. It looks like we should be able to
avoid some without much complexity by just making a per-vm ple_window
variable, and then, when we hit the nr_running == 1 condition, also doing
vmcs_write32(PLE_WINDOW, (kvm->ple_window += PLE_WINDOW_BUMP))
Reset the window to the default value when we successfully yield (and
maybe we should limit the number of bumps).
Drew
>
> How about something like the below, that would allow breaking out of the
> for-each-vcpu loop and simply going back into the vm, right?
>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index b38f00e..5d5b355 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -4272,7 +4272,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(yield);
> * It's the caller's job to ensure that the target task struct
> * can't go away on us before we can do any checks.
> *
> - * Returns true if we indeed boosted the target task.
> + * Returns:
> + * true (>0) if we indeed boosted the target task.
> + * false (0) if we failed to boost the target.
> + * -ESRCH if there's no task to yield to.
> */
> bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)
> {
> @@ -4284,6 +4287,15 @@ bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)
> local_irq_save(flags);
> rq = this_rq();
>
> + /*
> + * If we're the only runnable task on the rq, there's absolutely no
> + * point in yielding.
> + */
> + if (rq->nr_running == 1) {
> + yielded = -ESRCH;
> + goto out_irq;
> + }
> +
> again:
> p_rq = task_rq(p);
> double_rq_lock(rq, p_rq);
> @@ -4293,13 +4305,13 @@ bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)
> }
>
> if (!curr->sched_class->yield_to_task)
> - goto out;
> + goto out_unlock;
>
> if (curr->sched_class != p->sched_class)
> - goto out;
> + goto out_unlock;
>
> if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state)
> - goto out;
> + goto out_unlock;
>
> yielded = curr->sched_class->yield_to_task(rq, p, preempt);
> if (yielded) {
> @@ -4312,11 +4324,12 @@ bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)
> resched_task(p_rq->curr);
> }
>
> -out:
> +out_unlock:
> double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
> +out_irq:
> local_irq_restore(flags);
>
> - if (yielded)
> + if (yielded > 0)
> schedule();
>
> return yielded;
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
