On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 02:53:54PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> So far, when a guest executes WFE (like when waiting for a spinlock
> to become unlocked), we don't do a thing and let it run uninterrupted.
>
> Another option is to trap a blocking WFE and offer the opportunity
> to the scheduler to switch to another task, potentially giving the
> vcpu holding the spinlock a chance to run sooner.
>
I'm curious if we have any data supporting this to be a good idea?
My intuition here is that waiting for a spinlock really shouldn't be
something a guest is doing for a long time - we always try to avoid too
much contention on spinlocks, no? The theory that it would unlock the
spinlock sooner is really only supported if the CPU resources are
grossly oversubscribed - are we optimizing for this case?
So, how many cycles do we anticipate a world-switch back and forward
between a VM and the host to be compared to the average number of spin
cycles for a spinlock?
Finally, for the case where a waiting vcpu is only going to spin for a
couple of cycles, aren't we adding significant overhead? I would expect
this to be the most common case.
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_arm.h | 6 ++++--
> arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_arm.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_arm.h
> index a5f28e2..ac1ea05 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_arm.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_arm.h
> @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@
> * TAC: Trap ACTLR
> * TSC: Trap SMC
> * TSW: Trap cache operations by set/way
> + * TWE: Trap WFE
> * TWI: Trap WFI
> * TIDCP: Trap L2CTLR/L2ECTLR
> * BSU_IS: Upgrade barriers to the inner shareable domain
> @@ -72,8 +73,9 @@
> * FMO: Override CPSR.F and enable signaling with VF
> * SWIO: Turn set/way invalidates into set/way clean+invalidate
> */
> -#define HCR_GUEST_FLAGS (HCR_TSC | HCR_TSW | HCR_TWI | HCR_VM | HCR_BSU_IS | \
> - HCR_FB | HCR_TAC | HCR_AMO | HCR_IMO | HCR_FMO | \
> +#define HCR_GUEST_FLAGS (HCR_TSC | HCR_TSW | HCR_TWE | HCR_TWI | HCR_VM | \
> + HCR_BSU_IS | HCR_FB | HCR_TAC | \
> + HCR_AMO | HCR_IMO | HCR_FMO | \
> HCR_SWIO | HCR_TIDCP | HCR_RW)
> #define HCR_VIRT_EXCP_MASK (HCR_VA | HCR_VI | HCR_VF)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> index 9beaca03..b0098c2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> @@ -47,21 +47,29 @@ static int handle_smc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
> }
>
> /**
> - * kvm_handle_wfi - handle a wait-for-interrupts instruction executed by a guest
> + * kvm_handle_wfx - handle a wait-for-interrupts or wait-for-event
> + * instruction executed by a guest
> + *
> * @vcpu: the vcpu pointer
> *
> - * Simply call kvm_vcpu_block(), which will halt execution of
> + * WFE: Yield the CPU and come back to this vcpu when the scheduler
> + * decides to.
> + * WFI: Simply call kvm_vcpu_block(), which will halt execution of
> * world-switches and schedule other host processes until there is an
> * incoming IRQ or FIQ to the VM.
> */
> -static int kvm_handle_wfi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
> +static int kvm_handle_wfx(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
> {
> - kvm_vcpu_block(vcpu);
> + if (kvm_vcpu_get_hsr(vcpu) & 1)
> + cond_resched();
> + else
> + kvm_vcpu_block(vcpu);
> +
> return 1;
> }
>
> static exit_handle_fn arm_exit_handlers[] = {
> - [ESR_EL2_EC_WFI] = kvm_handle_wfi,
> + [ESR_EL2_EC_WFI] = kvm_handle_wfx,
> [ESR_EL2_EC_CP15_32] = kvm_handle_cp15_32,
> [ESR_EL2_EC_CP15_64] = kvm_handle_cp15_64,
> [ESR_EL2_EC_CP14_MR] = kvm_handle_cp14_access,
> --
> 1.8.2.3
>
>
--
Christoffer
--
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
