From: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] VM: x86: Return ealier if clocksource has not changed
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 16:59:02 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161229085902.GA2474@yu-desktop-1.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161227153244.GA14267@amt.cnet>
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 01:32:47PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 04:06:44PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> > Hi Marcelo,
> > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:44:25PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 04:41:53PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> > > > Currently the notifier of pvclock_gtod_notify() get invoked
> > > > frequently due to the periodic update_wall_time(). This might
> > > > slow down the system a little bit as there might be redundant
> > > > execution code path and unnecessary lock contention
> > > > in update_pvclock_gtod(), which was found when I was doing
> > > > suspend/resume speed testings. As pvclock_gtod_notify()
> > > > should be invoked only when clocksource has changed, according to
> > > > Commit 16e8d74d2da9 ("KVM: x86: notifier for clocksource changes")
> > > > , either we can add a new notifier for clocksource switch,
> > > > or we can simply bypass the following code in pvclock_gtod_notify()
> > > > earlier if there is no clocksource switch.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: "Radim Krcmar" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> > > > Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 5 +++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > index 445c51b..54aa32d 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > @@ -5961,13 +5961,14 @@ static int pvclock_gtod_notify(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long unused,
> > > > struct pvclock_gtod_data *gtod = &pvclock_gtod_data;
> > > > struct timekeeper *tk = priv;
> > > >
> > > > + if (likely(gtod->clock.vclock_mode == VCLOCK_TSC))
> > > > + return 0;
> > >
> > > I think this is only safe if any of the values in "struct
> > > pvclock_gtod_data" are unchanged. Otherwise the local (KVM) copy is
> > > kept incorrect.
> > I missread the code previously and I thought only under the condition
> > the clocksource has been switched to another one will the KVM copy
> > be touched. Apparently it is not the case because the copy should
> > be updated on-time during normal tick, right?
> > thanks for your reply,
>
> Yes, it is updated during the normal tick, and mult/freq values change.
>
> However, if none of them change, its not necessary to call the callback.
> Perhaps you can check if any of the values changed and only
> invoke the callback in that case?
>
Yes, this should be an optimization, but most of the callers(workload) come
from update_wall_time(), and in this code path the clock source's cycle
should already be updated in most cases, so this optimization should not take
much effect to reduce the burden I guess?
Thanks,
Yu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-29 8:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-23 8:41 [PATCH][RFC] VM: x86: Return ealier if clocksource has not changed Chen Yu
2016-12-26 19:44 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2016-12-27 8:06 ` Chen Yu
2016-12-27 15:32 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2016-12-29 8:59 ` Chen Yu [this message]
2016-12-29 9:57 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2016-12-29 13:54 ` Chen Yu
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=20161229085902.GA2474@yu-desktop-1.sh.intel.com \
--to=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wanpeng.li@hotmail.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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).