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

[Marc Zyngier]

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...