[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 1/6] x86/paravirt: Add pv_idle_ops to paravirt ops
On 2017/11/13 18:53, Juergen Gross wrote: On 13/11/17 11:06, Quan Xu wrote:From: Quan Xu <quan.xu0@xxxxxxxxx> So far, pv_idle_ops.poll is the only ops for pv_idle. .poll is called in idle path which will poll for a while before we enter the real idle state. In virtualization, idle path includes several heavy operations includes timer access(LAPIC timer or TSC deadline timer) which will hurt performance especially for latency intensive workload like message passing task. The cost is mainly from the vmexit which is a hardware context switch between virtual machine and hypervisor. Our solution is to poll for a while and do not enter real idle path if we can get the schedule event during polling. Poll may cause the CPU waste so we adopt a smart polling mechanism to reduce the useless poll. Signed-off-by: Yang Zhang <yang.zhang.wz@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Quan Xu <quan.xu0@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> Cc: Alok Kataria <akataria@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: x86@xxxxxxxxxx Cc: virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxHmm, is the idle entry path really so critical to performance that a new pvops function is necessary? Juergen, 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): 35787.7 bit/s -- 129.4 %CPU 3. w/ kvm dynamic poll: 35735.6 bit/s -- 200.0 %CPU 4. w/patch and w/ kvm dynamic poll: 42225.3 bit/s -- 198.7 %CPU 5. idle=poll 37081.7 bit/s -- 998.1 %CPU w/ this patch, we will improve performance by 23%.. even we could improve performance by 45.4%, if we use w/patch and w/ kvm dynamic poll. also the cost of CPU is much lower than 'idle=poll' case.. Wouldn't a function pointer, maybe guarded by a static key, be enough? A further advantage would be that this would work on other architectures, too. I assume this feature will be ported to other archs.. a new pvops makes codeclean and easy to maintain. also I tried to add it into existed pvops, but it doesn't match. Quan Alibaba Cloud Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |