2017-11-06 17:14 GMT+08:00 Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>: > Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> 2017-08-03 0:09 GMT+08:00 Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> Changes since v9: >>> - Rebase to 4.13-rc3. >>> - Drop PATCH1 as it was already taken by Greg to char-misc tree. There're no >>> functional dependencies on this patch so the series can go through a different tree >>> (and it actually belongs to x86 if I got Ingo's comment right). >>> - Add in missing void return type in PATCH1 [Colin King, Ingo Molnar, Greg KH] >>> - A few minor fixes in what is now PATCH7: add pr_fmt, tiny style fix in >>> hyperv_flush_tlb_others() [Andy Shevchenko] >>> - Fix "error: implicit declaration of function 'virt_to_phys'" in PATCH2 >>> reported by kbuild test robot (#include <asm/io.h>) >>> - Add Steven's 'Reviewed-by:' to PATCH9. >>> >>> Original description: >>> >>> Hyper-V supports hypercalls for doing local and remote TLB flushing and >>> gives its guests hints when using hypercall is preferred. While doing >>> hypercalls for local TLB flushes is probably not practical (and is not >>> being suggested by modern Hyper-V versions) remote TLB flush with a >>> hypercall brings significant improvement. >>> >>> To test the series I wrote a special 'TLB trasher': on a 16 vCPU guest I >>> was creating 32 threads which were doing 100000 mmap/munmaps each on some >>> big file. Here are the results: >>> >>> Before: >>> # time ./pthread_mmap ./randfile >>> real 3m33.118s >>> user 0m3.698s >>> sys 3m16.624s >>> >>> After: >>> # time ./pthread_mmap ./randfile >>> real 2m19.920s >>> user 0m2.662s >>> sys 2m9.948s >>> >>> This series brings a number of small improvements along the way: fast >>> hypercall implementation and using it for event signaling, rep hypercalls >>> implementation, hyperv tracing subsystem (which only traces the newly added >>> remote TLB flush for now). >>> >> >> Hi Vitaly, >> >> Could you attach your benchmark? I'm interested in to try the >> implementation in paravirt kvm. >> > > Oh, this would be cool) I briefly discussed the idea with Radim (one of > KVM maintainers) during the last KVM Forum and he wasn't opposed to the > idea. Need to talk to Paolo too. Good thing is that we have everything I talk with Paolo today and he points this feature to me, so I believe he likes it. :) In addition, https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/hyper-v-on-windows/reference/tlfs I search Hypervisor Top Level Functional Specification v5.0b.pdf document but didn't find a section introduce the Hyper-V: paravirtualized remote TLB flushing and hypercall stuff, could you point out? Regards, Wanpeng Li > in place for guests now (HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE is enabled globaly on x86). > > Please see the microbenchmark attached. Adjust defines in the beginning > to match your needs. It is not anything smart, basically just a TLB > trasher. > > In theory, the best result is achived when we're overcommiting the host > by running multiple vCPUs on each pCPU. In this case PV tlb flush avoids > touching vCPUs which are not scheduled and avoid the wait on the main > CPU. > > -- > Vitaly > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
