On 2017/11/14 15:30, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 14/11/17 08:02, Quan Xu wrote:
On 2017/11/13 18:53, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 13/11/17 11:06, Quan Xu wrote:
From: Quan Xu <quan.xu0@xxxxxxxxx>
So far, pv_idle_ops.poll is the only ops for pv_idle. .poll is called
in idle path which will poll for a while before we enter the real idle
state.
In virtualization, idle path includes several heavy operations
includes timer access(LAPIC timer or TSC deadline timer) which will
hurt performance especially for latency intensive workload like message
passing task. The cost is mainly from the vmexit which is a hardware
context switch between virtual machine and hypervisor. Our solution is
to poll for a while and do not enter real idle path if we can get the
schedule event during polling.
Poll may cause the CPU waste so we adopt a smart polling mechanism to
reduce the useless poll.
Signed-off-by: Yang Zhang <yang.zhang.wz@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Quan Xu <quan.xu0@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Alok Kataria <akataria@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: x86@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hmm, is the idle entry path really so critical to performance that a new
pvops function is necessary?
Juergen, Here is the data we get when running benchmark netperf:
1. w/o patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0):
29031.6 bit/s -- 76.1 %CPU
2. w/ patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0):
35787.7 bit/s -- 129.4 %CPU
3. w/ kvm dynamic poll:
35735.6 bit/s -- 200.0 %CPU
4. w/patch and w/ kvm dynamic poll:
42225.3 bit/s -- 198.7 %CPU
5. idle=poll
37081.7 bit/s -- 998.1 %CPU
w/ this patch, we will improve performance by 23%.. even we could improve
performance by 45.4%, if we use w/patch and w/ kvm dynamic poll. also the
cost of CPU is much lower than 'idle=poll' case..
I don't question the general idea. I just think pvops isn't the best way
to implement it.
Wouldn't a function pointer, maybe guarded
by a static key, be enough? A further advantage would be that this would
work on other architectures, too.
I assume this feature will be ported to other archs.. a new pvops makes
sorry, a typo.. /other archs/other hypervisors/
it refers hypervisor like Xen, HyperV and VMware)..
code
clean and easy to maintain. also I tried to add it into existed pvops,
but it
doesn't match.
You are aware that pvops is x86 only?
yes, I'm aware..
I really don't see the big difference in maintainability compared to the
static key / function pointer variant:
void (*guest_idle_poll_func)(void);
struct static_key guest_idle_poll_key __read_mostly;
static inline void guest_idle_poll(void)
{
if (static_key_false(&guest_idle_poll_key))
guest_idle_poll_func();
}
thank you for your sample code :)
I agree there is no big difference.. I think we are discussion for two
things:
1) x86 VM on different hypervisors
2) different archs VM on kvm hypervisor
What I want to do is x86 VM on different hypervisors, such as kvm / xen
/ hyperv ..
And KVM would just need to set guest_idle_poll_func and enable the
static key. Works on non-x86 architectures, too.
.. referred to 'pv_mmu_ops', HyperV and Xen can implement their own
functions for 'pv_mmu_ops'.
I think it is the same to pv_idle_ops.
with above explaination, do you still think I need to define the static
key/function pointer variant?
btw, any interest to port it to Xen HVM guest? :)
Quan
Alibaba Cloud
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
