[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 0/6] x86/idle: add halt poll support
From: Yang Zhang <yang.zhang.wz@xxxxxxxxx> Some latency-intensive workload have seen obviously performance drop when running inside VM. The main reason is that the overhead is amplified when running inside VM. The most cost I have seen is inside idle path. This patch introduces a new mechanism to poll for a while before entering idle state. If schedule is needed during poll, then we don't need to goes through the heavy overhead path. Here is the data we get when running benchmark contextswitch to measure the latency(lower is better): 1. w/o patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0): 3402.9 ns/ctxsw -- 199.8 %CPU 2. w/ patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0): halt_poll_threshold=10000 -- 1151.4 ns/ctxsw -- 200.1 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=20000 -- 1149.7 ns/ctxsw -- 199.9 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=30000 -- 1151.0 ns/ctxsw -- 199.9 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=40000 -- 1155.4 ns/ctxsw -- 199.3 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=50000 -- 1161.0 ns/ctxsw -- 200.0 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=100000 -- 1163.8 ns/ctxsw -- 200.4 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=300000 -- 1159.4 ns/ctxsw -- 201.9 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=500000 -- 1163.5 ns/ctxsw -- 205.5 %CPU 3. w/ kvm dynamic poll: halt_poll_ns=10000 -- 3470.5 ns/ctxsw -- 199.6 %CPU halt_poll_ns=20000 -- 3273.0 ns/ctxsw -- 199.7 %CPU halt_poll_ns=30000 -- 3628.7 ns/ctxsw -- 199.4 %CPU halt_poll_ns=40000 -- 2280.6 ns/ctxsw -- 199.5 %CPU halt_poll_ns=50000 -- 3200.3 ns/ctxsw -- 199.7 %CPU halt_poll_ns=100000 -- 2186.6 ns/ctxsw -- 199.6 %CPU halt_poll_ns=300000 -- 3178.7 ns/ctxsw -- 199.6 %CPU halt_poll_ns=500000 -- 3505.4 ns/ctxsw -- 199.7 %CPU 4. w/patch and w/ kvm dynamic poll: halt_poll_ns=10000 & halt_poll_threshold=10000 -- 1155.5 ns/ctxsw -- 199.8 %CPU halt_poll_ns=10000 & halt_poll_threshold=20000 -- 1165.6 ns/ctxsw -- 199.8 %CPU halt_poll_ns=10000 & halt_poll_threshold=30000 -- 1161.1 ns/ctxsw -- 200.0 %CPU halt_poll_ns=20000 & halt_poll_threshold=10000 -- 1158.1 ns/ctxsw -- 199.8 %CPU halt_poll_ns=20000 & halt_poll_threshold=20000 -- 1161.0 ns/ctxsw -- 199.7 %CPU halt_poll_ns=20000 & halt_poll_threshold=30000 -- 1163.7 ns/ctxsw -- 199.9 %CPU halt_poll_ns=30000 & halt_poll_threshold=10000 -- 1158.7 ns/ctxsw -- 199.7 %CPU halt_poll_ns=30000 & halt_poll_threshold=20000 -- 1153.8 ns/ctxsw -- 199.8 %CPU halt_poll_ns=30000 & halt_poll_threshold=30000 -- 1155.1 ns/ctxsw -- 199.8 %CPU 5. idle=poll 3957.57 ns/ctxsw -- 999.4%CPU Here is the data we get when running benchmark netperf: 1. w/o patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0): 29031.6 bit/s -- 76.1 %CPU 2. w/ patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0): halt_poll_threshold=10000 -- 29021.7 bit/s -- 105.1 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=20000 -- 33463.5 bit/s -- 128.2 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=30000 -- 34436.4 bit/s -- 127.8 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=40000 -- 35563.3 bit/s -- 129.6 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=50000 -- 35787.7 bit/s -- 129.4 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=100000 -- 35477.7 bit/s -- 130.0 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=300000 -- 35730.0 bit/s -- 132.4 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=500000 -- 34978.4 bit/s -- 134.2 %CPU 3. w/ kvm dynamic poll: halt_poll_ns=10000 -- 28849.8 bit/s -- 75.2 %CPU halt_poll_ns=20000 -- 29004.8 bit/s -- 76.1 %CPU halt_poll_ns=30000 -- 35662.0 bit/s -- 199.7 %CPU halt_poll_ns=40000 -- 35874.8 bit/s -- 187.5 %CPU halt_poll_ns=50000 -- 35603.1 bit/s -- 199.8 %CPU halt_poll_ns=100000 -- 35588.8 bit/s -- 200.0 %CPU halt_poll_ns=300000 -- 35912.4 bit/s -- 200.0 %CPU halt_poll_ns=500000 -- 35735.6 bit/s -- 200.0 %CPU 4. w/patch and w/ kvm dynamic poll: halt_poll_ns=10000 & halt_poll_threshold=10000 -- 29427.9 bit/s -- 107.8 %CPU halt_poll_ns=10000 & halt_poll_threshold=20000 -- 33048.4 bit/s -- 128.1 %CPU halt_poll_ns=10000 & halt_poll_threshold=30000 -- 35129.8 bit/s -- 129.1 %CPU halt_poll_ns=20000 & halt_poll_threshold=10000 -- 31091.3 bit/s -- 130.3 %CPU halt_poll_ns=20000 & halt_poll_threshold=20000 -- 33587.9 bit/s -- 128.9 %CPU halt_poll_ns=20000 & halt_poll_threshold=30000 -- 35532.9 bit/s -- 129.1 %CPU halt_poll_ns=30000 & halt_poll_threshold=10000 -- 35633.1 bit/s -- 199.4 %CPU halt_poll_ns=30000 & halt_poll_threshold=20000 -- 42225.3 bit/s -- 198.7 %CPU halt_poll_ns=30000 & halt_poll_threshold=30000 -- 42210.7 bit/s -- 200.3 %CPU 5. idle=poll 37081.7 bit/s -- 998.1 %CPU --- V2 -> V3: - move poll update into arch/. in v3, poll update is based on duration of the last idle loop which is from tick_nohz_idle_enter to tick_nohz_idle_exit, and try our best not to interfere with scheduler/idle code. (This seems not to follow Peter's v2 comment, however we had a f2f discussion about it in Prague.) - enhance patch desciption. - enhance Documentation and sysctls. - test with IRQ_TIMINGS related code, which seems not working so far. V1 -> V2: - integrate the smart halt poll into paravirt code - use idle_stamp instead of check_poll - since it hard to get whether vcpu is the only task in pcpu, so we don't consider it in this series.(May improve it in future) --- Quan Xu (4): x86/paravirt: Add pv_idle_ops to paravirt ops KVM guest: register kvm_idle_poll for pv_idle_ops Documentation: Add three sysctls for smart idle poll tick: get duration of the last idle loop Yang Zhang (2): sched/idle: Add a generic poll before enter real idle path KVM guest: introduce smart idle poll algorithm Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt | 35 ++++++++++++++++ arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h | 5 ++ arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h | 6 +++ arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c | 10 +++++ arch/x86/kernel/process.c | 7 +++ include/linux/kernel.h | 6 +++ include/linux/tick.h | 2 + kernel/sched/idle.c | 2 + kernel/sysctl.c | 34 +++++++++++++++ kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 11 +++++ kernel/time/tick-sched.h | 3 + 12 files changed, 194 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |