From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5455DC2D0DC for ; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 08:34:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BC242071E for ; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 08:34:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726578AbfLZIeq (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Dec 2019 03:34:46 -0500 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.189]:2546 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725878AbfLZIep (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Dec 2019 03:34:45 -0500 Received: from DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.53]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7577A6BC005611B887E2; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:34:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggeme755-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.101) by DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.209) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:34:41 +0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.173.221.248) by dggeme755-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:34:41 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] KVM: arm64: Support the vcpu preemption check To: Steven Price CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "maz@kernel.org" , James Morse , "linux@armlinux.org.uk" , Suzuki Poulose , "julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com" , "Catalin Marinas" , Mark Rutland , "will@kernel.org" , "daniel.lezcano@linaro.org" References: <20191217135549.3240-1-yezengruan@huawei.com> <20191217135549.3240-6-yezengruan@huawei.com> <20191217144032.GD38811@arm.com> From: yezengruan Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:34:38 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191217144032.GD38811@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.173.221.248] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggeme719-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.115) To dggeme755-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.101) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Steve, On 2019/12/17 22:40, Steven Price wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 01:55:49PM +0000, yezengruan@huawei.com wrote: >> From: Zengruan Ye >> >> Support the vcpu_is_preempted() functionality under KVM/arm64. This will >> enhance lock performance on overcommitted hosts (more runnable vcpus >> than physical cpus in the system) as doing busy waits for preempted >> vcpus will hurt system performance far worse than early yielding. >> >> unix benchmark result: >> host: kernel 5.5.0-rc1, HiSilicon Kunpeng920, 8 cpus >> guest: kernel 5.5.0-rc1, 16 vcpus >> >> test-case | after-patch | before-patch >> ----------------------------------------+-------------------+------------------ >> Dhrystone 2 using register variables | 334600751.0 lps | 335319028.3 lps >> Double-Precision Whetstone | 32856.1 MWIPS | 32849.6 MWIPS >> Execl Throughput | 3662.1 lps | 2718.0 lps >> File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks | 432906.4 KBps | 158011.8 KBps >> File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks | 116023.0 KBps | 37664.0 KBps >> File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks | 1432769.8 KBps | 441108.8 KBps >> Pipe Throughput | 6405029.6 lps | 6021457.6 lps >> Pipe-based Context Switching | 185872.7 lps | 184255.3 lps >> Process Creation | 4025.7 lps | 3706.6 lps >> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) | 6745.6 lpm | 6436.1 lpm >> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) | 998.7 lpm | 931.1 lpm >> System Call Overhead | 3913363.1 lps | 3883287.8 lps >> ----------------------------------------+-------------------+------------------ >> System Benchmarks Index Score | 1835.1 | 1327.6 >> >> Signed-off-by: Zengruan Ye >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/paravirt.h | 3 + >> arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 2 + >> include/linux/cpuhotplug.h | 1 + >> 4 files changed, 97 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/paravirt.h >> index 7b1c81b544bb..a2cd0183bbef 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/paravirt.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/paravirt.h >> @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@ static inline u64 paravirt_steal_clock(int cpu) >> >> int __init pv_time_init(void); >> >> +int __init kvm_guest_init(void); >> + > > This is a *very* generic name - I suggest something like pv_lock_init() > so it's clear what the function actually does. > >> __visible bool __native_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu); >> >> static inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) >> @@ -39,6 +41,7 @@ static inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) >> #else >> >> #define pv_time_init() do {} while (0) >> +#define kvm_guest_init() do {} while (0) >> >> #endif // CONFIG_PARAVIRT >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c >> index d8f1ba8c22ce..a86dead40473 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c >> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ >> #include >> #include >> #include >> +#include >> >> struct static_key paravirt_steal_enabled; >> struct static_key paravirt_steal_rq_enabled; >> @@ -158,3 +159,93 @@ int __init pv_time_init(void) >> >> return 0; >> } >> + >> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pvlock_vcpu_state, pvlock_vcpu_region) __aligned(64); >> +EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(pvlock_vcpu_region); >> + >> +static int pvlock_vcpu_state_dying_cpu(unsigned int cpu) >> +{ >> + struct pvlock_vcpu_state *reg; >> + >> + reg = this_cpu_ptr(&pvlock_vcpu_region); >> + if (!reg) >> + return -EFAULT; >> + >> + memset(reg, 0, sizeof(*reg)); > > I might be missing something obvious here - but I don't see the point of > this. The hypervisor might immediately overwrite the structure again. > Indeed you should conside a mechanism for the guest to "unregister" the > region - otherwise you will face issues with the likes of kexec. > > For pv_time the memory is allocated by the hypervisor not the guest to > avoid lifetime issues about kexec. Thanks for pointing it out to me! I'll update the memory allocation mechanism of the PV lock structure to avoid lifetime issues about kexec. > >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static int init_pvlock_vcpu_state(unsigned int cpu) >> +{ >> + struct pvlock_vcpu_state *reg; >> + struct arm_smccc_res res; >> + >> + reg = this_cpu_ptr(&pvlock_vcpu_region); >> + if (!reg) >> + return -EFAULT; >> + >> + /* Pass the memory address to host via hypercall */ >> + arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_LOCK_PREEMPTED, >> + virt_to_phys(reg), &res); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static bool kvm_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) >> +{ >> + struct pvlock_vcpu_state *reg = &per_cpu(pvlock_vcpu_region, cpu); >> + >> + if (reg) >> + return !!(reg->preempted & 1); >> + >> + return false; >> +} >> + >> +static int kvm_arm_init_pvlock(void) >> +{ >> + int ret; >> + >> + ret = cpuhp_setup_state(CPUHP_AP_ARM_KVM_PVLOCK_STARTING, >> + "hypervisor/arm/pvlock:starting", >> + init_pvlock_vcpu_state, >> + pvlock_vcpu_state_dying_cpu); >> + if (ret < 0) >> + return ret; >> + >> + pv_ops.lock.vcpu_is_preempted = kvm_vcpu_is_preempted; >> + >> + pr_info("using PV-lock preempted\n"); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static bool has_kvm_pvlock(void) >> +{ >> + struct arm_smccc_res res; >> + >> + /* To detect the presence of PV lock support we require SMCCC 1.1+ */ >> + if (psci_ops.smccc_version < SMCCC_VERSION_1_1) >> + return false; >> + >> + arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID, >> + ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_LOCK_FEATURES, &res); >> + >> + if (res.a0 != SMCCC_RET_SUCCESS) >> + return false; >> + >> + return true; >> +} >> + >> +int __init kvm_guest_init(void) >> +{ >> + if (is_hyp_mode_available()) >> + return 0; >> + >> + if (!has_kvm_pvlock()) >> + return 0; >> + >> + kvm_arm_init_pvlock(); > > Consider reporting errors from kvm_arm_init_pvlock()? At the moment > it's impossible to tell the difference between pvlock not being > supported and something failing in the setup. Good point, I'll update the code. > > Steve > >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c >> index 56f664561754..64c4d515ba2d 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c >> @@ -341,6 +341,8 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p) >> smp_init_cpus(); >> smp_build_mpidr_hash(); >> >> + kvm_guest_init(); >> + >> /* Init percpu seeds for random tags after cpus are set up. */ >> kasan_init_tags(); >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/cpuhotplug.h b/include/linux/cpuhotplug.h >> index e51ee772b9f5..f72ff95ab63a 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/cpuhotplug.h >> +++ b/include/linux/cpuhotplug.h >> @@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ enum cpuhp_state { >> CPUHP_AP_DUMMY_TIMER_STARTING, >> CPUHP_AP_ARM_XEN_STARTING, >> CPUHP_AP_ARM_KVMPV_STARTING, >> + CPUHP_AP_ARM_KVM_PVLOCK_STARTING, >> CPUHP_AP_ARM_CORESIGHT_STARTING, >> CPUHP_AP_ARM64_ISNDEP_STARTING, >> CPUHP_AP_SMPCFD_DYING, >> -- >> 2.19.1 >> >> > > . > Thanks, Zengruan From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B06C2D0DB for ; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 08:34:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C8B2071E for ; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 08:34:50 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 64C8B2071E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3E94ACBE; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 03:34:50 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yvgt5-rkH5t8; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 03:34:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F514AC87; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 03:34:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2566A4A95D for ; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 03:34:47 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3zEKA-WWjUx0 for ; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 03:34:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.189]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88A9E4A5A0 for ; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 03:34:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.53]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7577A6BC005611B887E2; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:34:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggeme755-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.101) by DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.209) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:34:41 +0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.173.221.248) by dggeme755-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:34:41 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] KVM: arm64: Support the vcpu preemption check To: Steven Price References: <20191217135549.3240-1-yezengruan@huawei.com> <20191217135549.3240-6-yezengruan@huawei.com> <20191217144032.GD38811@arm.com> From: yezengruan Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:34:38 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191217144032.GD38811@arm.com> Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.173.221.248] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggeme719-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.115) To dggeme755-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.101) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "daniel.lezcano@linaro.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "maz@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" , Catalin Marinas , "linux@armlinux.org.uk" , "will@kernel.org" , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Hi Steve, On 2019/12/17 22:40, Steven Price wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 01:55:49PM +0000, yezengruan@huawei.com wrote: >> From: Zengruan Ye >> >> Support the vcpu_is_preempted() functionality under KVM/arm64. This will >> enhance lock performance on overcommitted hosts (more runnable vcpus >> than physical cpus in the system) as doing busy waits for preempted >> vcpus will hurt system performance far worse than early yielding. >> >> unix benchmark result: >> host: kernel 5.5.0-rc1, HiSilicon Kunpeng920, 8 cpus >> guest: kernel 5.5.0-rc1, 16 vcpus >> >> test-case | after-patch | before-patch >> ----------------------------------------+-------------------+------------------ >> Dhrystone 2 using register variables | 334600751.0 lps | 335319028.3 lps >> Double-Precision Whetstone | 32856.1 MWIPS | 32849.6 MWIPS >> Execl Throughput | 3662.1 lps | 2718.0 lps >> File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks | 432906.4 KBps | 158011.8 KBps >> File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks | 116023.0 KBps | 37664.0 KBps >> File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks | 1432769.8 KBps | 441108.8 KBps >> Pipe Throughput | 6405029.6 lps | 6021457.6 lps >> Pipe-based Context Switching | 185872.7 lps | 184255.3 lps >> Process Creation | 4025.7 lps | 3706.6 lps >> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) | 6745.6 lpm | 6436.1 lpm >> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) | 998.7 lpm | 931.1 lpm >> System Call Overhead | 3913363.1 lps | 3883287.8 lps >> ----------------------------------------+-------------------+------------------ >> System Benchmarks Index Score | 1835.1 | 1327.6 >> >> Signed-off-by: Zengruan Ye >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/paravirt.h | 3 + >> arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 2 + >> include/linux/cpuhotplug.h | 1 + >> 4 files changed, 97 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/paravirt.h >> index 7b1c81b544bb..a2cd0183bbef 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/paravirt.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/paravirt.h >> @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@ static inline u64 paravirt_steal_clock(int cpu) >> >> int __init pv_time_init(void); >> >> +int __init kvm_guest_init(void); >> + > > This is a *very* generic name - I suggest something like pv_lock_init() > so it's clear what the function actually does. > >> __visible bool __native_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu); >> >> static inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) >> @@ -39,6 +41,7 @@ static inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) >> #else >> >> #define pv_time_init() do {} while (0) >> +#define kvm_guest_init() do {} while (0) >> >> #endif // CONFIG_PARAVIRT >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c >> index d8f1ba8c22ce..a86dead40473 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c >> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ >> #include >> #include >> #include >> +#include >> >> struct static_key paravirt_steal_enabled; >> struct static_key paravirt_steal_rq_enabled; >> @@ -158,3 +159,93 @@ int __init pv_time_init(void) >> >> return 0; >> } >> + >> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pvlock_vcpu_state, pvlock_vcpu_region) __aligned(64); >> +EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(pvlock_vcpu_region); >> + >> +static int pvlock_vcpu_state_dying_cpu(unsigned int cpu) >> +{ >> + struct pvlock_vcpu_state *reg; >> + >> + reg = this_cpu_ptr(&pvlock_vcpu_region); >> + if (!reg) >> + return -EFAULT; >> + >> + memset(reg, 0, sizeof(*reg)); > > I might be missing something obvious here - but I don't see the point of > this. The hypervisor might immediately overwrite the structure again. > Indeed you should conside a mechanism for the guest to "unregister" the > region - otherwise you will face issues with the likes of kexec. > > For pv_time the memory is allocated by the hypervisor not the guest to > avoid lifetime issues about kexec. Thanks for pointing it out to me! I'll update the memory allocation mechanism of the PV lock structure to avoid lifetime issues about kexec. > >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static int init_pvlock_vcpu_state(unsigned int cpu) >> +{ >> + struct pvlock_vcpu_state *reg; >> + struct arm_smccc_res res; >> + >> + reg = this_cpu_ptr(&pvlock_vcpu_region); >> + if (!reg) >> + return -EFAULT; >> + >> + /* Pass the memory address to host via hypercall */ >> + arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_LOCK_PREEMPTED, >> + virt_to_phys(reg), &res); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static bool kvm_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) >> +{ >> + struct pvlock_vcpu_state *reg = &per_cpu(pvlock_vcpu_region, cpu); >> + >> + if (reg) >> + return !!(reg->preempted & 1); >> + >> + return false; >> +} >> + >> +static int kvm_arm_init_pvlock(void) >> +{ >> + int ret; >> + >> + ret = cpuhp_setup_state(CPUHP_AP_ARM_KVM_PVLOCK_STARTING, >> + "hypervisor/arm/pvlock:starting", >> + init_pvlock_vcpu_state, >> + pvlock_vcpu_state_dying_cpu); >> + if (ret < 0) >> + return ret; >> + >> + pv_ops.lock.vcpu_is_preempted = kvm_vcpu_is_preempted; >> + >> + pr_info("using PV-lock preempted\n"); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static bool has_kvm_pvlock(void) >> +{ >> + struct arm_smccc_res res; >> + >> + /* To detect the presence of PV lock support we require SMCCC 1.1+ */ >> + if (psci_ops.smccc_version < SMCCC_VERSION_1_1) >> + return false; >> + >> + arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID, >> + ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_LOCK_FEATURES, &res); >> + >> + if (res.a0 != SMCCC_RET_SUCCESS) >> + return false; >> + >> + return true; >> +} >> + >> +int __init kvm_guest_init(void) >> +{ >> + if (is_hyp_mode_available()) >> + return 0; >> + >> + if (!has_kvm_pvlock()) >> + return 0; >> + >> + kvm_arm_init_pvlock(); > > Consider reporting errors from kvm_arm_init_pvlock()? At the moment > it's impossible to tell the difference between pvlock not being > supported and something failing in the setup. Good point, I'll update the code. > > Steve > >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c >> index 56f664561754..64c4d515ba2d 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c >> @@ -341,6 +341,8 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p) >> smp_init_cpus(); >> smp_build_mpidr_hash(); >> >> + kvm_guest_init(); >> + >> /* Init percpu seeds for random tags after cpus are set up. */ >> kasan_init_tags(); >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/cpuhotplug.h b/include/linux/cpuhotplug.h >> index e51ee772b9f5..f72ff95ab63a 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/cpuhotplug.h >> +++ b/include/linux/cpuhotplug.h >> @@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ enum cpuhp_state { >> CPUHP_AP_DUMMY_TIMER_STARTING, >> CPUHP_AP_ARM_XEN_STARTING, >> CPUHP_AP_ARM_KVMPV_STARTING, >> + CPUHP_AP_ARM_KVM_PVLOCK_STARTING, >> CPUHP_AP_ARM_CORESIGHT_STARTING, >> CPUHP_AP_ARM64_ISNDEP_STARTING, >> CPUHP_AP_SMPCFD_DYING, >> -- >> 2.19.1 >> >> > > . > Thanks, Zengruan _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB64C2D0DA for ; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 08:34:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07F6F2071E for ; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 08:34:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="ezL2FfV2" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 07F6F2071E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description :Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=x923Jgo6OTPojUcUXVEWgiBcrpsNpJv8QWyAqAlQY60=; b=ezL2FfV2u7NAV1 6VWsyviKqM1thrDj5P7cXwFGIRBP4TGZh7bq3O2OFzohdzVlMrGUGMBoOgbwmP/1rrxgAIH+Xk3Fy O6ywz6xktpfnHvvQFjGksy/nV0aYnxwCPaEGno6VFfLk5PY4v2wHw2yepec6iltRRcMCSDosaWDPf YPavNVl9L+RN/h+oNKdke2SxMWXJ1uufsC5MBJx41aduFlHa3i3D/B0eNWVZtjbKiGwCrDrV3ii2U tGZOCUhgr6vJpl+kc1Jeslb9K9RFi9KICrPQIT0zTW0muH/Ny2ACvgKTvKpv9DQ7Ic+32yiFapYOf ASSZa2j0brzuJp9FKb7A==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ikOba-0001lE-Sz; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 08:34:50 +0000 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.189] helo=huawei.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ikObW-0001jV-IS for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 08:34:48 +0000 Received: from DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.53]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7577A6BC005611B887E2; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:34:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggeme755-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.101) by DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.209) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:34:41 +0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.173.221.248) by dggeme755-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:34:41 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] KVM: arm64: Support the vcpu preemption check To: Steven Price References: <20191217135549.3240-1-yezengruan@huawei.com> <20191217135549.3240-6-yezengruan@huawei.com> <20191217144032.GD38811@arm.com> From: yezengruan Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:34:38 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191217144032.GD38811@arm.com> Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.173.221.248] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggeme719-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.115) To dggeme755-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.101) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20191226_003446_948233_805D4AD6 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 21.89 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Mark Rutland , "daniel.lezcano@linaro.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "maz@kernel.org" , Suzuki Poulose , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" , James Morse , "julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com" , Catalin Marinas , "linux@armlinux.org.uk" , "will@kernel.org" , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi Steve, On 2019/12/17 22:40, Steven Price wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 01:55:49PM +0000, yezengruan@huawei.com wrote: >> From: Zengruan Ye >> >> Support the vcpu_is_preempted() functionality under KVM/arm64. This will >> enhance lock performance on overcommitted hosts (more runnable vcpus >> than physical cpus in the system) as doing busy waits for preempted >> vcpus will hurt system performance far worse than early yielding. >> >> unix benchmark result: >> host: kernel 5.5.0-rc1, HiSilicon Kunpeng920, 8 cpus >> guest: kernel 5.5.0-rc1, 16 vcpus >> >> test-case | after-patch | before-patch >> ----------------------------------------+-------------------+------------------ >> Dhrystone 2 using register variables | 334600751.0 lps | 335319028.3 lps >> Double-Precision Whetstone | 32856.1 MWIPS | 32849.6 MWIPS >> Execl Throughput | 3662.1 lps | 2718.0 lps >> File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks | 432906.4 KBps | 158011.8 KBps >> File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks | 116023.0 KBps | 37664.0 KBps >> File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks | 1432769.8 KBps | 441108.8 KBps >> Pipe Throughput | 6405029.6 lps | 6021457.6 lps >> Pipe-based Context Switching | 185872.7 lps | 184255.3 lps >> Process Creation | 4025.7 lps | 3706.6 lps >> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) | 6745.6 lpm | 6436.1 lpm >> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) | 998.7 lpm | 931.1 lpm >> System Call Overhead | 3913363.1 lps | 3883287.8 lps >> ----------------------------------------+-------------------+------------------ >> System Benchmarks Index Score | 1835.1 | 1327.6 >> >> Signed-off-by: Zengruan Ye >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/paravirt.h | 3 + >> arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 2 + >> include/linux/cpuhotplug.h | 1 + >> 4 files changed, 97 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/paravirt.h >> index 7b1c81b544bb..a2cd0183bbef 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/paravirt.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/paravirt.h >> @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@ static inline u64 paravirt_steal_clock(int cpu) >> >> int __init pv_time_init(void); >> >> +int __init kvm_guest_init(void); >> + > > This is a *very* generic name - I suggest something like pv_lock_init() > so it's clear what the function actually does. > >> __visible bool __native_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu); >> >> static inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) >> @@ -39,6 +41,7 @@ static inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) >> #else >> >> #define pv_time_init() do {} while (0) >> +#define kvm_guest_init() do {} while (0) >> >> #endif // CONFIG_PARAVIRT >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c >> index d8f1ba8c22ce..a86dead40473 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c >> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ >> #include >> #include >> #include >> +#include >> >> struct static_key paravirt_steal_enabled; >> struct static_key paravirt_steal_rq_enabled; >> @@ -158,3 +159,93 @@ int __init pv_time_init(void) >> >> return 0; >> } >> + >> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pvlock_vcpu_state, pvlock_vcpu_region) __aligned(64); >> +EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(pvlock_vcpu_region); >> + >> +static int pvlock_vcpu_state_dying_cpu(unsigned int cpu) >> +{ >> + struct pvlock_vcpu_state *reg; >> + >> + reg = this_cpu_ptr(&pvlock_vcpu_region); >> + if (!reg) >> + return -EFAULT; >> + >> + memset(reg, 0, sizeof(*reg)); > > I might be missing something obvious here - but I don't see the point of > this. The hypervisor might immediately overwrite the structure again. > Indeed you should conside a mechanism for the guest to "unregister" the > region - otherwise you will face issues with the likes of kexec. > > For pv_time the memory is allocated by the hypervisor not the guest to > avoid lifetime issues about kexec. Thanks for pointing it out to me! I'll update the memory allocation mechanism of the PV lock structure to avoid lifetime issues about kexec. > >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static int init_pvlock_vcpu_state(unsigned int cpu) >> +{ >> + struct pvlock_vcpu_state *reg; >> + struct arm_smccc_res res; >> + >> + reg = this_cpu_ptr(&pvlock_vcpu_region); >> + if (!reg) >> + return -EFAULT; >> + >> + /* Pass the memory address to host via hypercall */ >> + arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_LOCK_PREEMPTED, >> + virt_to_phys(reg), &res); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static bool kvm_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) >> +{ >> + struct pvlock_vcpu_state *reg = &per_cpu(pvlock_vcpu_region, cpu); >> + >> + if (reg) >> + return !!(reg->preempted & 1); >> + >> + return false; >> +} >> + >> +static int kvm_arm_init_pvlock(void) >> +{ >> + int ret; >> + >> + ret = cpuhp_setup_state(CPUHP_AP_ARM_KVM_PVLOCK_STARTING, >> + "hypervisor/arm/pvlock:starting", >> + init_pvlock_vcpu_state, >> + pvlock_vcpu_state_dying_cpu); >> + if (ret < 0) >> + return ret; >> + >> + pv_ops.lock.vcpu_is_preempted = kvm_vcpu_is_preempted; >> + >> + pr_info("using PV-lock preempted\n"); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static bool has_kvm_pvlock(void) >> +{ >> + struct arm_smccc_res res; >> + >> + /* To detect the presence of PV lock support we require SMCCC 1.1+ */ >> + if (psci_ops.smccc_version < SMCCC_VERSION_1_1) >> + return false; >> + >> + arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID, >> + ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_LOCK_FEATURES, &res); >> + >> + if (res.a0 != SMCCC_RET_SUCCESS) >> + return false; >> + >> + return true; >> +} >> + >> +int __init kvm_guest_init(void) >> +{ >> + if (is_hyp_mode_available()) >> + return 0; >> + >> + if (!has_kvm_pvlock()) >> + return 0; >> + >> + kvm_arm_init_pvlock(); > > Consider reporting errors from kvm_arm_init_pvlock()? At the moment > it's impossible to tell the difference between pvlock not being > supported and something failing in the setup. Good point, I'll update the code. > > Steve > >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c >> index 56f664561754..64c4d515ba2d 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c >> @@ -341,6 +341,8 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p) >> smp_init_cpus(); >> smp_build_mpidr_hash(); >> >> + kvm_guest_init(); >> + >> /* Init percpu seeds for random tags after cpus are set up. */ >> kasan_init_tags(); >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/cpuhotplug.h b/include/linux/cpuhotplug.h >> index e51ee772b9f5..f72ff95ab63a 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/cpuhotplug.h >> +++ b/include/linux/cpuhotplug.h >> @@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ enum cpuhp_state { >> CPUHP_AP_DUMMY_TIMER_STARTING, >> CPUHP_AP_ARM_XEN_STARTING, >> CPUHP_AP_ARM_KVMPV_STARTING, >> + CPUHP_AP_ARM_KVM_PVLOCK_STARTING, >> CPUHP_AP_ARM_CORESIGHT_STARTING, >> CPUHP_AP_ARM64_ISNDEP_STARTING, >> CPUHP_AP_SMPCFD_DYING, >> -- >> 2.19.1 >> >> > > . > Thanks, Zengruan _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel