Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] KVM: dynamic halt_poll_ns adjustment

[David Matlack]

Thanks for writing v2, Wanpeng.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There is a downside of halt_poll_ns since poll is still happen for idle
> VCPU which can waste cpu usage. This patch adds the ability to adjust
> halt_poll_ns dynamically.

What testing have you done with these patches? Do you know if this removes
the overhead of polling in idle VCPUs? Do we lose any of the performance
from always polling?

>
> There are two new kernel parameters for changing the halt_poll_ns:
> halt_poll_ns_grow and halt_poll_ns_shrink. A third new parameter,
> halt_poll_ns_max, controls the maximal halt_poll_ns; it is internally
> rounded down to a closest multiple of halt_poll_ns_grow. The shrink/grow
> matrix is suggested by David:
>
> if (poll successfully for interrupt): stay the same
>   else if (length of kvm_vcpu_block is longer than halt_poll_ns_max): shrink
>   else if (length of kvm_vcpu_block is less than halt_poll_ns_max): grow

The way you implemented this wasn't what I expected. I thought you would time
the whole function (kvm_vcpu_block). But I like your approach better. It's
simpler and [by inspection] does what we want.

>
>   halt_poll_ns_shrink/ |
>   halt_poll_ns_grow    | grow halt_poll_ns    | shrink halt_poll_ns
>   ---------------------+----------------------+-------------------
>   < 1                  |  = halt_poll_ns      |  = 0
>   < halt_poll_ns       | *= halt_poll_ns_grow | /= halt_poll_ns_shrink
>   otherwise            | += halt_poll_ns_grow | -= halt_poll_ns_shrink

I was curious why you went with this approach rather than just the
middle row, or just the last row. Do you think we'll want the extra
flexibility?

>
> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index 93db833..2a4962b 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -66,9 +66,26 @@
>  MODULE_AUTHOR("Qumranet");
>  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>
> -static unsigned int halt_poll_ns;
> +#define KVM_HALT_POLL_NS  500000
> +#define KVM_HALT_POLL_NS_GROW   2
> +#define KVM_HALT_POLL_NS_SHRINK 0
> +#define KVM_HALT_POLL_NS_MAX 2000000

The macros are not necessary. Also, hard coding the numbers in the param
definitions will make reading the comments above them easier.

> +
> +static unsigned int halt_poll_ns = KVM_HALT_POLL_NS;
>  module_param(halt_poll_ns, uint, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR);
>
> +/* Default doubles per-vcpu halt_poll_ns. */
> +static unsigned int halt_poll_ns_grow = KVM_HALT_POLL_NS_GROW;
> +module_param(halt_poll_ns_grow, int, S_IRUGO);
> +
> +/* Default resets per-vcpu halt_poll_ns . */
> +static unsigned int halt_poll_ns_shrink = KVM_HALT_POLL_NS_SHRINK;
> +module_param(halt_poll_ns_shrink, int, S_IRUGO);
> +
> +/* halt polling only reduces halt latency by 10-15 us, 2ms is enough */

Ah, I misspoke before. I was thinking about round-trip latency. The latency
of a single halt is reduced by about 5-7 us.

> +static unsigned int halt_poll_ns_max = KVM_HALT_POLL_NS_MAX;
> +module_param(halt_poll_ns_max, int, S_IRUGO);

We can remove halt_poll_ns_max. vcpu->halt_poll_ns can always start at zero
and grow from there. Then we just need one module param to keep
vcpu->halt_poll_ns from growing too large.

[ It would make more sense to remove halt_poll_ns and keep halt_poll_ns_max,
  but since halt_poll_ns already exists in upstream kernels, we probably can't
  remove it. ]

> +
>  /*
>   * Ordering of locks:
>   *
> @@ -1907,6 +1924,48 @@ void kvm_vcpu_mark_page_dirty(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_vcpu_mark_page_dirty);
>
> +static unsigned int __grow_halt_poll_ns(unsigned int val)
> +{
> +       if (halt_poll_ns_grow < 1)
> +               return halt_poll_ns;
> +
> +       val = min(val, halt_poll_ns_max);
> +
> +       if (val == 0)
> +               return halt_poll_ns;
> +
> +       if (halt_poll_ns_grow < halt_poll_ns)
> +               val *= halt_poll_ns_grow;
> +       else
> +               val += halt_poll_ns_grow;
> +
> +       return val;
> +}
> +
> +static unsigned int __shrink_halt_poll_ns(int val, int modifier, int minimum)

minimum never gets used.

> +{
> +       if (modifier < 1)
> +               return 0;
> +
> +       if (modifier < halt_poll_ns)
> +               val /= modifier;
> +       else
> +               val -= modifier;
> +
> +       return val;
> +}
> +
> +static void grow_halt_poll_ns(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)

These wrappers aren't necessary.

> +{
> +       vcpu->halt_poll_ns = __grow_halt_poll_ns(vcpu->halt_poll_ns);
> +}
> +
> +static void shrink_halt_poll_ns(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +       vcpu->halt_poll_ns = __shrink_halt_poll_ns(vcpu->halt_poll_ns,
> +                       halt_poll_ns_shrink, halt_poll_ns);
> +}
> +
>  static int kvm_vcpu_check_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
>         if (kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(vcpu)) {
> @@ -1954,6 +2013,10 @@ void kvm_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>                         break;
>
>                 waited = true;
> +               if (vcpu->halt_poll_ns > halt_poll_ns_max)
> +                       shrink_halt_poll_ns(vcpu);
> +               else
> +                       grow_halt_poll_ns(vcpu);

Shouldn't this go after the loop, and before "out:", in case we schedule
more than once? You can gate it on "if (waited)" so it only runs if we
actually scheduled.

>                 schedule();
>         }
>
> --
> 1.9.1
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/