lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 0/3] KVM: Dynamic Halt-Polling
From
Date
On 9/2/15 6:34 AM, David Matlack wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/2/15 5:45 AM, David Matlack wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> v3 -> v4:
>>>> * bring back grow vcpu->halt_poll_ns when interrupt arrives and shrinks
>>>> when idle VCPU is detected
>>>>
>>>> v2 -> v3:
>>>> * grow/shrink vcpu->halt_poll_ns by *halt_poll_ns_grow or
>>>> /halt_poll_ns_shrink
>>>> * drop the macros and hard coding the numbers in the param definitions
>>>> * update the comments "5-7 us"
>>>> * remove halt_poll_ns_max and use halt_poll_ns as the max halt_poll_ns
>>>> time,
>>>> vcpu->halt_poll_ns start at zero
>>>> * drop the wrappers
>>>> * move the grow/shrink logic before "out:" w/ "if (waited)"
>>> I posted a patchset which adds dynamic poll toggling (on/off switch). I
>>> think
>>> this gives you a good place to build your dynamic growth patch on top. The
>>> toggling patch has close to zero overhead for idle VMs and equivalent
>>> performance VMs doing message passing as always-poll. It's a patch that's
>>> been
>>> in my queue for a few weeks but just haven't had the time to send out. We
>>> can
>>> win even more with your patchset by only polling as much as we need (via
>>> dynamic growth/shrink). It also gives us a better place to stand for
>>> choosing
>>> a default for halt_poll_ns. (We can run experiments and see how high
>>> vcpu->halt_poll_ns tends to grow.)
>>>
>>> The reason I posted a separate patch for toggling is because it adds
>>> timers
>>> to kvm_vcpu_block and deals with a weird edge case (kvm_vcpu_block can get
>>> called multiple times for one halt). To do dynamic poll adjustment

Why this can happen?

>>> correctly,
>>> we have to time the length of each halt. Otherwise we hit some bad edge
>>> cases:
>>>
>>> v3: v3 had lots of idle overhead. It's because vcpu->halt_poll_ns grew
>>> every
>>> time we had a long halt. So idle VMs looked like: 0 us -> 500 us -> 1
>>> ms ->
>>> 2 ms -> 4 ms -> 0 us. Ideally vcpu->halt_poll_ns should just stay at 0
>>> when
>>> the halts are long.
>>>
>>> v4: v4 fixed the idle overhead problem but broke dynamic growth for
>>> message
>>> passing VMs. Every time a VM did a short halt, vcpu->halt_poll_ns would
>>> grow.
>>> That means vcpu->halt_poll_ns will always be maxed out, even when the
>>> halt
>>> time is much less than the max.
>>>
>>> I think we can fix both edge cases if we make grow/shrink decisions based
>>> on
>>> the length of kvm_vcpu_block rather than the arrival of a guest interrupt
>>> during polling.
>>>
>>> Some thoughts for dynamic growth:
>>> * Given Windows 10 timer tick (1 ms), let's set the maximum poll time
>>> to
>>> less than 1ms. 200 us has been a good value for always-poll. We can
>>> probably go a bit higher once we have your patch. Maybe 500 us?

Did you test your patch against a windows guest?

>>>
>>> * The base case of dynamic growth (the first grow() after being at 0)
>>> should
>>> be small. 500 us is too big. When I run TCP_RR in my guest I see poll
>>> times
>>> of < 10 us. TCP_RR is on the lower-end of message passing workload
>>> latency,
>>> so 10 us would be a good base case.
>>
>> How to get your TCP_RR benchmark?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Wanpeng Li
> Install the netperf package, or build from here:
> http://www.netperf.org/netperf/DownloadNetperf.html
>
> In the vm:
>
> # ./netserver
> # ./netperf -t TCP_RR
>
> Be sure to use an SMP guest (we want TCP_RR to be a cross-core message
> passing workload in order to test halt-polling).

Ah, ok, I use the same benchmark as yours.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-02 01:21    [W:0.072 / U:3.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site