[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e322a252-f983-e3f3-f823-16d0c16b2867@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 16:28:18 -0800
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4
On 1/14/20 7:40 AM, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:12 PM Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>> I also encountered kernel panic with the v4 code when taking cpu offline or online
>> when core scheduler is running. I've refreshed the previous patch, along
>> with 3 other patches to fix problems related to CPU online/offline.
>>
>> As a side effect of the fix, each core can now operate in core-scheduling
>> mode or non core-scheduling mode, depending on how many online SMT threads it has.
>>
>> Vineet, are you guys planning to refresh v4 and update it to v5? Aubrey posted
>> a port to the latest kernel earlier.
>>
> Thanks for the updated patch Tim.
>
> We have been testing with v4 rebased on 5.4.8 as RC kernels had given us
> trouble in the past. v5 is due soon and we are planning to release v5 when
> 5.5 comes out. As of now, v5 has your crash fixes and Aubrey's changes
> related to load balancing. We are investigating a performance issue with
> high overcommit io intensive workload and also we are trying to see if
> we can add synchronization during VMEXITs so that a guest vm cannot run
> run alongside with host kernel. We also need to think about the userland
> interface for corescheduling in preparation for upstreaming work.
>
Vineet,
Have you guys been able to make progress on the issues with I/O intensive workload?
Can you explain a bit further what the problem is?
Is the VM doing lots of I/O, causing frequent VMEXITs?
And the the host thread doing the I/O cannot run along side with vcpu
thread, resulting in extra forced idle? So you are trying not to put vcpu
on the same core with such host thread?
Tim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists