Date:	Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:39:29 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 <x86@...nel.org>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Improving directed yield scalability for PLE handler

On 09/18/2012 06:03 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 11:55 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 09/14/2012 12:30 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
>> 
>> > The concern I have is that even though we have gone through changes to
>> > help reduce the candidate vcpus we yield to, we still have a very poor
>> > idea of which vcpu really needs to run.  The result is high cpu usage in
>> > the get_pid_task and still some contention in the double runqueue lock.
>> > To make this scalable, we either need to significantly reduce the
>> > occurrence of the lock-holder preemption, or do a much better job of
>> > knowing which vcpu needs to run (and not unnecessarily yielding to vcpus
>> > which do not need to run).
>> > 
>> > On reducing the occurrence:  The worst case for lock-holder preemption
>> > is having vcpus of same VM on the same runqueue.  This guarantees the
>> > situation of 1 vcpu running while another [of the same VM] is not.  To
>> > prove the point, I ran the same test, but with vcpus restricted to a
>> > range of host cpus, such that any single VM's vcpus can never be on the
>> > same runqueue.  In this case, all 10 VMs' vcpu-0's are on host cpus 0-4,
>> > vcpu-1's are on host cpus 5-9, and so on.  Here is the result:
>> > 
>> > kvm_cpu_spin, and all
>> > yield_to changes, plus
>> > restricted vcpu placement:  8823 +/- 3.20%   much, much better
>> > 
>> > On picking a better vcpu to yield to:  I really hesitate to rely on
>> > paravirt hint [telling us which vcpu is holding a lock], but I am not
>> > sure how else to reduce the candidate vcpus to yield to.  I suspect we
>> > are yielding to way more vcpus than are prempted lock-holders, and that
>> > IMO is just work accomplishing nothing.  Trying to think of way to
>> > further reduce candidate vcpus....
>> 
>> I wouldn't say that yielding to the "wrong" vcpu accomplishes nothing.
>> That other vcpu gets work done (unless it is in pause loop itself) and
>> the yielding vcpu gets put to sleep for a while, so it doesn't spend
>> cycles spinning.  While we haven't fixed the problem at least the guest
>> is accomplishing work, and meanwhile the real lock holder may get
>> naturally scheduled and clear the lock.
> 
> OK, yes, if the other thread gets useful work done, then it is not
> wasteful.  I was thinking of the worst case scenario, where any other
> vcpu would likely spin as well, and the host side cpu-time for switching
> vcpu threads was not all that productive.  Well, I suppose it does help
> eliminate potential lock holding vcpus; it just seems to be not that
> efficient or fast enough.

If we have N-1 vcpus spinwaiting on 1 vcpu, with N:1 overcommit then
yes, we must iterate over N-1 vcpus until we find Mr. Right.  Eventually
it's not-a-timeslice will expire and we go through this again.  If
N*y_yield is comparable to the timeslice, we start losing efficiency.
Because of lock contention, t_yield can scale with the number of host
cpus.  So in this worst case, we get quadratic behaviour.

One way out is to increase the not-a-timeslice.  Can we get spinning
vcpus to do that for running vcpus, if they cannot find a
runnable-but-not-running vcpu?

That's not guaranteed to help, if we boost a running vcpu too much it
will skew how vcpu runtime is distributed even after the lock is released.

> 
>> The main problem with this theory is that the experiments don't seem to
>> bear it out.
> 
> Granted, my test case is quite brutal.  It's nothing but over-committed
> VMs which always have some spin lock activity.  However, we really
> should try to fix the worst case scenario.

Yes.  And other guests may not scale as well as Linux, so they may show
this behaviour more often.

> 
>>   So maybe one of the assumptions is wrong - the yielding
>> vcpu gets scheduled early.  That could be the case if the two vcpus are
>> on different runqueues - you could be changing the relative priority of
>> vcpus on the target runqueue, but still remain on top yourself.  Is this
>> possible with the current code?
>> 
>> Maybe we should prefer vcpus on the same runqueue as yield_to targets,
>> and only fall back to remote vcpus when we see it didn't help.
>> 
>> Let's examine a few cases:
>> 
>> 1. spinner on cpu 0, lock holder on cpu 0
>> 
>> win!
>> 
>> 2. spinner on cpu 0, random vcpu(s) (or normal processes) on cpu 0
>> 
>> Spinner gets put to sleep, random vcpus get to work, low lock contention
>> (no double_rq_lock), by the time spinner gets scheduled we might have won
>> 
>> 3. spinner on cpu 0, another spinner on cpu 0
>> 
>> Worst case, we'll just spin some more.  Need to detect this case and
>> migrate something in.
> 
> Well, we can certainly experiment and see what we get.
> 
> IMO, the key to getting this working really well on the large VMs is
> finding the lock-holding cpu -quickly-.  What I think is happening is
> that we go through a relatively long process to get to that one right
> vcpu.  I guess I need to find a faster way to get there.

pvspinlocks will find the right one, every time.  Otherwise I see no way
to do this.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists