[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56C70332.40603@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:57:38 +0700
From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, <joro@...tes.org>,
<alex.williamson@...hat.com>, <gleb@...nel.org>
CC: <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<wei@...hat.com>, <sherry.hurwitz@....com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PART1 RFC 6/9] svm: Add interrupt injection via AVIC
Hi Paolo,
On 2/13/16 01:19, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 12/02/2016 17:21, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> Hi Paolo,
>>
>> On 02/12/2016 10:55 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>>>>> index 4244c2b..2def290 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>>>>> @@ -8087,7 +8087,9 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>> if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) && kvm_x86_ops->check_nested_events)
>>>>> kvm_x86_ops->check_nested_events(vcpu, false);
>>>>>
>>>>> - return kvm_vcpu_running(vcpu) || kvm_vcpu_has_events(vcpu);
>>>>> + return (kvm_vcpu_running(vcpu) || kvm_vcpu_has_events(vcpu) ||
>>>>> + (kvm_x86_ops->apicv_intr_pending &&
>>>>> + kvm_x86_ops->apicv_intr_pending(vcpu)));
>>>>> }
>>> I think this is not necessary. What you need is to make kvm_lapic's
>>> regs field point to the backing page. Then when the processor writes to
>>> IRR, kvm_apic_has_interrupt (called through kvm_vcpu_has_events) will
>>> see it.
>>>
>>> avic_pending_cnt shouldn't be necessary either.
>>>
>>> Paolo
Actually, I also found out during another benchmark (running tar xf
linux.tar.gz) on the VM w/ multiple cpus, that the performance is quite
bad due to large amount of AVIC_INCOMP_IPI vmexit for to target not
running. The same issue does not happen with 1 vcpu, or taskset the tar
process to one vcpu, or if I put in the logic above in
kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable() to delay the halting.
>>
>> So, the other thing I am using the avic_pending_cnt for is for the part
>> 2 of the series (to enable AVIC support in IOMMU) that I am planning to
>> send out later. However, it might be good to discuss this at this point.
>
> It's better to discuss it later. For now, I would prefer the AVIC
> patches to be as clean as possible, and not know about the IOMMU at all.
> Also, there are a lot of assumptions about how to use kvm_lapic's regs
> field for APIC virtualization---dating back to when Intel only
> virtualized the TPR field. Deviating for that would be a recipe for
> trouble. :)
>
> Regarding the IOMMU, I'm actually very happy with the way the Intel VT-d
> posted interrupts patches worked out, so I would be even more happy if
> everything you do fits in the same scheme and reuses the same hooks! :D
>
>> When the IOMMU cannot inject interrupts into the guest vcpu due to it is
>> not running (therefore, it cannot doorbell the vcpu directly), it logs
>> the interrupt in the GA log buffer.
>>
>> Then it generates interrupt to
>> notify the IOMMU driver that it needs to handle the log entry. Here, the
>> IOMMU driver will end up notifying the SVM to scheduling the VCPU in to
>> process interrupt.
>>
>> Here, I have run into issue where the vcpu often goes into idle (i.e.
>> scheduled out), and ended up causing IOMMU to generate a lot of the
>> entries in the GA log. This really hurts device pass-through performance
>> (e.g. for XGBE NIC).
>>
>> So, what I ended up experimenting with is to set the avic_pending_cnt to
>> a larger value (i.e. avic_ga_log_threshold) whenever we processing the
>> GA log entry. The intention is to delay the vcpu schedule out in
>> expecting that there might be more interrupts coming in soon. I also
>> make this threshold value tunable as a module_param.
>>
>> This actually works well in my experiment, where I can actually get
>> about 5% speed up in my netperf test on XGBE NIC pass-through test.
>> However, I am not sure if this is an acceptable approach. Actually, I
>> think it's similar to the halt_poll_ns, but specifically for IOMMU GA
>> log in this case.
>
> Have you retested now that the halt_poll_ns mechanism is dynamic and
> enabled by default? If I read patch 9 right, halt_poll_ns would delay
> vcpu_put and IsRunning=0. Hopefully this is enough to avoid this kind
> of notification and make the issue moot.
>
> Paolo
>
I assume that the halt_poll_ns mechanism would have been already enabled
by default as off commit 93c9247cfd1e608e262274616a28632681abb2d3.
So, I have tried playing with halt_poll_ns, halt_poll_ns_[grow|shrink],
but it doesn't seem to help much.
Thanks,
Suravee
Powered by blists - more mailing lists