[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUhT9=46WJBx2K+oebXx2yghWmU6=+V9fo9dDd4ubfTVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:19:28 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] kvm,rcu,nohz: use RCU extended quiescent state when
running KVM guest
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:59:09AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On 02/10/2015 06:41 AM, riel@...hat.com wrote:
>> >From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
>> >
>> >The host kernel is not doing anything while the CPU is executing
>> >a KVM guest VCPU, so it can be marked as being in an extended
>> >quiescent state, identical to that used when running user space
>> >code.
>> >
>> >The only exception to that rule is when the host handles an
>> >interrupt, which is already handled by the irq code, which
>> >calls rcu_irq_enter and rcu_irq_exit.
>> >
>> >The guest_enter and guest_exit functions already switch vtime
>> >accounting independent of context tracking. Leave those calls
>> >where they are, instead of moving them into the context tracking
>> >code.
>> >
>> >Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
>> >---
>> > include/linux/context_tracking.h | 6 ++++++
>> > include/linux/context_tracking_state.h | 1 +
>> > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 3 ++-
>> > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/include/linux/context_tracking.h b/include/linux/context_tracking.h
>> >index 954253283709..b65fd1420e53 100644
>> >--- a/include/linux/context_tracking.h
>> >+++ b/include/linux/context_tracking.h
>> >@@ -80,10 +80,16 @@ static inline void guest_enter(void)
>> > vtime_guest_enter(current);
>> > else
>> > current->flags |= PF_VCPU;
>> >+
>> >+ if (context_tracking_is_enabled())
>> >+ context_tracking_enter(IN_GUEST);
>>
>> Why the if statement?
>>
>> Also, have you checked how much this hurts guest lightweight
>> entry/exit latency? Context tracking is shockingly expensive for
>> reasons I don't fully understand, but hopefully most of it is the
>> vtime stuff. (Context tracking is *so* expensive that I almost
>> think we should set the performance taint flag if we enable it,
>> assuming that flag ended up getting merged. Also, we should make
>> context tracking faster.)
>
> It turns out that context_tracking_is_enabled() is a static inline
> that uses a static_key, so the overhead should be minimal on platforms
> having a full implementation of static keys.
Shouldn't we just fold that into context_tracking_xyz_enter?
Also, why does the vtime stuff depend on RCU extended quiescent
states? To me, they seem mostly orthogonal other than the fact that
they hook into the same places.
--Andy
--
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