linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] kvm: Use vcpu_id as pivot instead of last boosted vcpu in PLE handler

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5045EC91.9050406@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:27:05 +0530
From:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
CC:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Srikar <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] kvm: Use vcpu_id as pivot instead of last boosted
 vcpu in PLE handler

On 09/02/2012 09:59 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 09/02/2012 06:12 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:51:01AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>> The idea of starting from next vcpu (source of yield_to + 1) seem to
>>> work
>>> well for overcomitted guest rather than using last boosted vcpu. We
>>> can also
>>> remove per VM variable with this approach.
>>>
>>> Iteration for eligible candidate after this patch starts from vcpu
>>> source+1
>>> and ends at source-1 (after wrapping)
>>>
>>> Thanks Nikunj for his quick verification of the patch.
>>>
>>> Please let me know if this patch is interesting and makes sense.
>>>
>> This last_boosted_vcpu thing caused us trouble during attempt to
>> implement vcpu destruction. It is good to see it removed from this POV.
>
> I like this implementation. It should achieve pretty much
> the same as my old code, but without the downsides and without
> having to keep the same amount of global state.
>

My theoretical understanding how it would help is,

       |
       V
T0 ------- T1

suppose there are 4 vcpus (v1..v4) out of 32/64 vcpus simpultaneously 
enter directed yield handler,

if last_boosted_vcpu = i then v1 .. v4 will start from i, and there may
be some unnecessary attempts for directed yields.

We may not see such attempts with above patch. But again I agree that,
whole directed_yield stuff itself is very complicated because of 
possibility of each vcpu in different state (running/pauseloop exited 
while spinning/eligible)  and how they are located w.r.t each other.

Here is the result I got for ebizzy, 32 vcpu guest 32 core PLE machine
for 1x 2x and 3x overcommits.

base = 3.5-rc5 kernel with ple handler improvements patches applied
patched = base + vcpuid patch

      base         stdev       patched     stdev       %improvement
1x  1955.6250    39.8961    1863.3750    37.8302    -4.71716
2x  2475.3750   165.0307    3078.8750   341.9500    24.38014
3x  2071.5556    91.5370    2112.6667    56.6171     1.98455

Note:
I have to admit that, I am seeing very inconsistent results while 
experimenting with 3.6-rc kernel (not specific to vcpuid patch but as a 
whole) but not sure if it is some thing wrong in my config or should I 
spend some time debugging. Anybody has observed same?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/