Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1184529

Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow vCPUs kick-ahead

From Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow vCPUs kick-ahead
Date 2015-07-15 11:40 +0200
Message-ID <pMrkv-3up-65@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <pMksF-29i-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <pMksF-29i-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:13:35PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Frequent CPU halting (vmexit) and CPU kicking (vmenter) lengthens
> critical section and block forward progress.  This patch implements
> a kick-ahead mechanism where the unlocker will kick the queue head
> vCPUs as well as up to four additional vCPUs next to the queue head
> if they were halted.  The kickings are done after exiting the critical
> section to improve parallelism.
> 
> The amount of kick-ahead allowed depends on the number of vCPUs
> in the VM guest.  This patch, by itself, won't do much as most of
> the kickings are currently done at lock time. Coupled with the next
> patch that defers lock time kicking to unlock time, it should improve
> overall system performance in a busy overcommitted guest.
> 
> Linux kernel builds were run in KVM guest on an 8-socket, 4
> cores/socket Westmere-EX system and a 4-socket, 8 cores/socket
> Haswell-EX system. Both systems are configured to have 32 physical
> CPUs. The kernel build times before and after the patch were:
> 
> 		    Westmere			Haswell
>   Patch		32 vCPUs    48 vCPUs	32 vCPUs    48 vCPUs
>   -----		--------    --------    --------    --------
>   Before patch	 3m25.0s    10m34.1s	 2m02.0s    15m35.9s
>   After patch    3m27.4s    10m32.0s	 2m00.8s    14m52.5s
> 
> There wasn't too much difference before and after the patch.

That means either the patch isn't worth it, or as you seem to imply its
in the wrong place in this series.

> @@ -224,7 +233,16 @@ static unsigned int pv_lock_hash_bits __read_mostly;
>   */
>  void __init __pv_init_lock_hash(void)
>  {
> -	int pv_hash_size = ALIGN(4 * num_possible_cpus(), PV_HE_PER_LINE);
> +	int ncpus = num_possible_cpus();
> +	int pv_hash_size = ALIGN(4 * ncpus, PV_HE_PER_LINE);
> +	int i;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * The minimum number of vCPUs required in each kick-ahead level
> +	 */
> +	static const u8 kick_ahead_threshold[PV_KICK_AHEAD_MAX] = {
> +		4, 8, 16, 32
> +	};

You are aware we have ilog2(), right?

> +	/*
> +	 * Enable the unlock kick ahead mode according to the number of
> +	 * vCPUs available.
> +	 */
> +	for (i = PV_KICK_AHEAD_MAX; i > 0; i--)
> +		if (ncpus >= kick_ahead_threshold[i - 1]) {
> +			pv_kick_ahead = i;
> +			break;
> +		}

That's missing { }.

> +	if (pv_kick_ahead)
> +		pr_info("PV unlock kick ahead level %d enabled\n",
> +			pv_kick_ahead);

Idem.

That said, I still really dislike this patch, it again seems a random
bunch of hacks.

You also do not offer any support for any of the magic numbers..
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH v2 4/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow vCPUs kick-ahead Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com> - 2015-07-15 04:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow vCPUs kick-ahead Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-07-15 11:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow vCPUs kick-ahead Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com> - 2015-07-16 04:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow vCPUs kick-ahead Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com> - 2015-07-16 17:00 +0200

csiph-web