- Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler
- From: Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:06:51 +0300
- Cc: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>, S390 <linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Carsten Otte <cotte@xxxxxxxxxx>, KVM <kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@xxxxxx>, "Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, X86 <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux390@xxxxxxxxxx, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@xxxxxxxxx>, Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@xxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <4FFA8E5E.3070108@de.ibm.com>
- References: <20120709062012.24030.37154.sendpatchset@codeblue> <4FFA8E5E.3070108@de.ibm.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/13.0
On 07/09/2012 10:55 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 09/07/12 08:20, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> Currently Pause Looop Exit (PLE) handler is doing directed yield to a
>> random VCPU on PL exit. Though we already have filtering while choosing
>> the candidate to yield_to, we can do better.
>>
>> Problem is, for large vcpu guests, we have more probability of yielding
>> to a bad vcpu. We are not able to prevent directed yield to same guy who
>> has done PL exit recently, who perhaps spins again and wastes CPU.
>>
>> Fix that by keeping track of who has done PL exit. So The Algorithm in series
>> give chance to a VCPU which has:
>
>
> We could do the same for s390. The appropriate exit would be diag44 (yield to hypervisor).
>
> Almost all s390 kernels use diag9c (directed yield to a given guest cpu) for spinlocks, though.
Perhaps x86 should copy this.
> So there is no win here, but there are other cases were diag44 is used, e.g. cpu_relax.
> I have to double check with others, if these cases are critical, but for now, it seems
> that your dummy implementation for s390 is just fine. After all it is a no-op until
> we implement something.
Does the data structure make sense for you? If so we can move it to
common code (and manage it in kvm_vcpu_on_spin()). We can guard it with
CONFIG_KVM_HAVE_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT or something, so other archs don't
have to pay anything.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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
[KVM ARM]
[KVM ia64]
[KVM ppc]
[Spice Development]
[Libvirt]
[Libvirt Users]
[Linux USB Devel]
[Video for Linux]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Photo]
[Yosemite News]
[Yosemite Photos]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux SCSI]
[XFree86]