Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] KVM: arm64: VCPU preempted check support

From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Zengruan Ye <yezengruan@huawei.com>,
	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, james.morse@arm.com,
	linux@armlinux.org.uk, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
	julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	mark.rutland@arm.com, steven.price@arm.com,
	daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] KVM: arm64: VCPU preempted check support
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:14:10 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b1d23a82d6a7caa79a99597fb83472be@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200113121240.GC3260@willie-the-truck>

On 2020-01-13 12:12, Will Deacon wrote:
> [+PeterZ]
> 
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 09:58:27PM +0800, Zengruan Ye wrote:
>> This patch set aims to support the vcpu_is_preempted() functionality
>> under KVM/arm64, which allowing the guest to obtain the VCPU is
>> currently running or not. 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.
>> 
>> We have observed some performace improvements in uninx benchmark 
>> tests.
>> 
>> 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
> 
> Interesting, thanks for the numbers.
> 
> So it looks like there is a decent improvement to be had from targetted 
> vCPU
> wakeup, but I really dislike the explicit PV interface and it's already 
> been
> shown to interact badly with the WFE-based polling in 
> smp_cond_load_*().
> 
> Rather than expose a divergent interface, I would instead like to 
> explore an
> improvement to smp_cond_load_*() and see how that performs before we 
> commit
> to something more intrusive. Marc and I looked at this very briefly in 
> the
> past, and the basic idea is to register all of the WFE sites with the
> hypervisor, indicating which register contains the address being spun 
> on
> and which register contains the "bad" value. That way, you don't bother
> rescheduling a vCPU if the value at the address is still bad, because 
> you
> know it will exit immediately.
> 
> Of course, the devil is in the details because when I say "address", 
> that's
> a guest virtual address, so you need to play some tricks in the 
> hypervisor
> so that you have a separate mapping for the lockword (it's enough to 
> keep
> track of the physical address).
> 
> Our hacks are here but we basically ran out of time to work on them 
> beyond
> an unoptimised and hacky prototype:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git/log/?h=kvm-arm64/pvcy
> 
> Marc -- how would you prefer to handle this?

Let me try and rebase this thing to a modern kernel (I doubt it applies 
without
conflicts to mainline). We can then have discussion about its merit on 
the list
once I post it. It'd be good to have a pointer to the benchamrks that 
have been
used here.

Thanks,

         M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...