From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
"Sean Christopherson" <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
"Vitaly Kuznetsov" <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
"Wanpeng Li" <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
"Jim Mattson" <jmattson@google.com>,
"Joerg Roedel" <joro@8bytes.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
loobinliu@tencent.com, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "locking/pvqspinlock: Don't wait if vCPU is preempted"
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:56:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <29d04ee4-60e7-4df9-0c4f-fc29f2b0c6a8@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1567993228-23668-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com>
On 9/9/19 2:40 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
>
> This patch reverts commit 75437bb304b20 (locking/pvqspinlock: Don't wait if
> vCPU is preempted), we found great regression caused by this commit.
>
> Xeon Skylake box, 2 sockets, 40 cores, 80 threads, three VMs, each is 80 vCPUs.
> The score of ebizzy -M can reduce from 13000-14000 records/s to 1700-1800
> records/s with this commit.
>
> Host Guest score
>
> vanilla + w/o kvm optimizes vanilla 1700-1800 records/s
> vanilla + w/o kvm optimizes vanilla + revert 13000-14000 records/s
> vanilla + w/ kvm optimizes vanilla 4500-5000 records/s
> vanilla + w/ kvm optimizes vanilla + revert 14000-15500 records/s
>
> Exit from aggressive wait-early mechanism can result in yield premature and
> incur extra scheduling latency in over-subscribe scenario.
>
> kvm optimizes:
> [1] commit d73eb57b80b (KVM: Boost vCPUs that are delivering interrupts)
> [2] commit 266e85a5ec9 (KVM: X86: Boost queue head vCPU to mitigate lock waiter preemption)
>
> Tested-by: loobinliu@tencent.com
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
> Cc: loobinliu@tencent.com
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Fixes: 75437bb304b20 (locking/pvqspinlock: Don't wait if vCPU is preempted)
> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> index 89bab07..e84d21a 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> @@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ pv_wait_early(struct pv_node *prev, int loop)
> if ((loop & PV_PREV_CHECK_MASK) != 0)
> return false;
>
> - return READ_ONCE(prev->state) != vcpu_running || vcpu_is_preempted(prev->cpu);
> + return READ_ONCE(prev->state) != vcpu_running;
> }
>
> /*
There are several possibilities for this performance regression:
1) Multiple vcpus calling vcpu_is_preempted() repeatedly may cause some
cacheline contention issue depending on how that callback is implemented.
2) KVM may set the preempt flag for a short period whenver an vmexit
happens even if a vmenter is executed shortly after. In this case, we
may want to use a more durable vcpu suspend flag that indicates the vcpu
won't get a real vcpu back for a longer period of time.
Perhaps you can add a lock event counter to count the number of
wait_early events caused by vcpu_is_preempted() being true to see if it
really cause a lot more wait_early than without the vcpu_is_preempted()
call.
I have no objection to this, I just want to find out the root cause of it.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-09 10:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-09 1:40 [PATCH] Revert "locking/pvqspinlock: Don't wait if vCPU is preempted" Wanpeng Li
2019-09-09 10:56 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2019-09-09 11:06 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-09 12:16 ` Wanpeng Li
2019-09-10 5:56 ` Wanpeng Li
2019-09-11 4:25 ` Waiman Long
2019-09-11 13:04 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-25 3:15 ` Wanpeng Li
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=29d04ee4-60e7-4df9-0c4f-fc29f2b0c6a8@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kernellwp@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=loobinliu@tencent.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
--cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).