Re: [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks

[Raghavendra K T]

On 04/01/2012 07:23 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/01/2012 04:48 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>>> I have patch something like below in mind to try:
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>>> index d3b98b1..5127668 100644
>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>>> @@ -1608,15 +1608,18 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
>>>>         * else and called schedule in __vcpu_run.  Hopefully that
>>>>         * VCPU is holding the lock that we need and will release it.
>>>>         * We approximate round-robin by starting at the last boosted
>>>> VCPU.
>>>> +     * Priority is given to vcpu that are unhalted.
>>>>         */
>>>> -    for (pass = 0; pass<   2&&   !yielded; pass++) {
>>>> +    for (pass = 0; pass<   3&&   !yielded; pass++) {
>>>>            kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
>>>>                struct task_struct *task = NULL;
>>>>                struct pid *pid;
>>>> -            if (!pass&&   i<   last_boosted_vcpu) {
>>>> +            if (!pass&&   !vcpu->pv_unhalted)
>>>> +                continue;
>>>> +            else if (pass == 1&&   i<   last_boosted_vcpu) {
>>>>                    i = last_boosted_vcpu;
>>>>                    continue;
>>>> -            } else if (pass&&   i>   last_boosted_vcpu)
>>>> +            } else if (pass == 2&&   i>   last_boosted_vcpu)
>>>>                    break;
>>>>                if (vcpu == me)
>>>>                    continue;
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually I think this is unneeded.  The loops tries to find vcpus that
>>> are runnable but not running (vcpu_active(vcpu->wq)), and halted vcpus
>>> don't match this condition.
>>>

Oh! I think I misinterpreted your statement. hmm I got it. you told to
remove if (vcpu == me) condition.

I got some more interesting idea ( not sure there is some flaw in idea too).
Basically tried  similar idea (to PLE exit handler) in vcpu_block.

Instead of blind scheduling we try to do yield to vcpu that is kicked.
IMO it may solve some scalability problem and make LHP problem further
shrink.

I think Thomas would be happy to see the result.

results:
test setup.
===========
Host: i5-2540M CPU @ 2.60GHz laptop with 4cpu w/ hyperthreading. 8GB RAM
guest: 16 vcpu 2GB RAM  single guest.

Did kernbench run under guest:
x rc6-with ticketlock (current patchset)+ kvmpatches 
(CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCK=y)
+ rc6-with ticketlock + kvmpatches + try_yield_patch (below one) 
(YIELD_THRESHOLD=256) (CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCK=y)
* rc6-withticketlock + kvmpatches + try_yield_patch 
(YIELD_THRESHOLD=2048) (CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCK=y)

N           Min           Max        Median           Avg        Stddev
x   3        162.45        165.94       165.433     164.60767     1.8857111
+   3        114.02       117.243       115.953     115.73867     1.6221548
Difference at 95.0% confidence
        -29.6882% +/- 2.42192%
*   3       115.823       120.423       117.103       117.783     2.3741946
Difference at 95.0% confidence
        -28.4462% +/- 2.9521%


improvement ~29% w.r.t to current patches.

Note: vanilla rc6 (host and guest) with (CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCK=n)
did not finish kernbench run even after *1hr 45* minutes (above
kernbench runs took 9 minute and  6.5 min respectively). I did not try
to test it again.


Yes, I understand that  have to do some more test. and immediate TODO's
for patch are.

1) code belongs to arch/x86 directory and fill in static inline for
other archs
2) tweek YIELD_THRESHOLD value.

Ideas/suggestions welcome

Here is the try_yield_to patch.
---
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 5127668..3fa912a 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -1557,12 +1557,17 @@ void mark_page_dirty(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn)
 	mark_page_dirty_in_slot(kvm, memslot, gfn);
 }

+#define YIELD_THRESHOLD 2048
+static void kvm_vcpu_try_yield_to(struct kvm_vcpu *me);
 /*
  * The vCPU has executed a HLT instruction with in-kernel mode enabled.
  */
 void kvm_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 {
 	DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
+	unsigned int loop_count;
+
+	loop_count = 0;

 	for (;;) {
 		prepare_to_wait(&vcpu->wq, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
@@ -1579,7 +1584,10 @@ void kvm_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 		if (signal_pending(current))
 			break;

-		schedule();
+		if (loop_count++ % YIELD_THRESHOLD)
+			schedule();
+		else
+			kvm_vcpu_try_yield_to(vcpu);
 	}

 	finish_wait(&vcpu->wq, &wait);
@@ -1593,6 +1601,39 @@ void kvm_resched(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_resched);

+static void kvm_vcpu_try_yield(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
+{
+
+	struct kvm *kvm = me->kvm;
+	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
+	int i;
+
+	kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
+		struct task_struct *task = NULL;
+		struct pid *pid;
+		if (!vcpu->pv_unhalted)
+			continue;
+		if (waitqueue_active(&vcpu->wq))
+			continue;
+		rcu_read_lock();
+		pid = rcu_dereference(vcpu->pid);
+		if (pid)
+			task = get_pid_task(vcpu->pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
+		rcu_read_unlock();
+		if (!task)
+			continue;
+		if (task->flags & PF_VCPU) {
+			put_task_struct(task);
+			continue;
+		}
+		if (yield_to(task, 1)) {
+			put_task_struct(task);
+			break;
+		}
+		put_task_struct(task);
+	}
+}
+
 void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
 {
 	struct kvm *kvm = me->kvm;
---

--
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/