linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: Boost vCPU candidiate in user mode which is delivering interrupt

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: <CANRm+Cy-xmDRQoUfOYm+GGvWiS+qC_sBjyZmcLykbKqTF2YDxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Apr 2021 15:34:53 +0800
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Boost vCPU candidiate in user mode which is
 delivering interrupt

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 at 21:09, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 16/04/21 05:08, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>
> >
> > Both lock holder vCPU and IPI receiver that has halted are condidate for
> > boost. However, the PLE handler was originally designed to deal with the
> > lock holder preemption problem. The Intel PLE occurs when the spinlock
> > waiter is in kernel mode. This assumption doesn't hold for IPI receiver,
> > they can be in either kernel or user mode. the vCPU candidate in user mode
> > will not be boosted even if they should respond to IPIs. Some benchmarks
> > like pbzip2, swaptions etc do the TLB shootdown in kernel mode and most
> > of the time they are running in user mode. It can lead to a large number
> > of continuous PLE events because the IPI sender causes PLE events
> > repeatedly until the receiver is scheduled while the receiver is not
> > candidate for a boost.
> >
> > This patch boosts the vCPU candidiate in user mode which is delivery
> > interrupt. We can observe the speed of pbzip2 improves 10% in 96 vCPUs
> > VM in over-subscribe scenario (The host machine is 2 socket, 48 cores,
> > 96 HTs Intel CLX box). There is no performance regression for other
> > benchmarks like Unixbench spawn (most of the time contend read/write
> > lock in kernel mode), ebizzy (most of the time contend read/write sem
> > and TLB shoodtdown in kernel mode).
> >
> > +bool kvm_arch_interrupt_delivery(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > +{
> > +     if (vcpu->arch.apicv_active && static_call(kvm_x86_dy_apicv_has_pending_interrupt)(vcpu))
> > +             return true;
> > +
> > +     return false;
> > +}
>
> Can you reuse vcpu_dy_runnable instead of this new function?

I have some concerns. For x86 arch, vcpu_dy_runnable() will add extra
vCPU candidates by KVM_REQ_EVENT and async pf(which has already
opportunistically made the guest do other stuff). For other arches,
kvm_arch_dy_runnale() is equal to kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable() except
powerpc which has too many events and is not conservative. In general,
 vcpu_dy_runnable() will loose the conditions and add more vCPU
candidates.

    Wanpeng