[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YP9gkSk+CHdKLP/Q@google.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 01:25:37 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: "Li,Rongqing" <lirongqing@...du.com>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 答复: [PATCH] KVM: Consider SMT
idle status when halt polling
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021, Li,Rongqing wrote:
> > > > SMT siblings share caches and other hardware, halt polling will
> > > > degrade its sibling performance if its sibling is busy
> > >
> > > Do you have any real scenario benefits? As the polling nature, some
> > > cloud providers will configure to their preferred balance of cpu usage
> > > and performance, and other cloud providers for their NFV scenarios
> > > which are more sensitive to latency are vCPU and pCPU 1:1 pin,you
> > > destroy these setups.
> > >
> > > Wanpeng
> >
>
>
> Run a copy (single thread) Unixbench, with or without a busy poll program in
> its SMT sibling, and Unixbench score can lower 1/3 with SMT busy polling
> program
Rather than disallowing halt-polling entirely, on x86 it should be sufficient to
simply have the hardware thread yield to its sibling(s) via PAUSE. It probably
won't get back all performance, but I would expect it to be close.
This compiles on all KVM architectures, and AFAICT the intended usage of
cpu_relax() is identical for all architectures.
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 6980dabe9df5..a07ecb3c67fb 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -3111,6 +3111,7 @@ void kvm_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
goto out;
}
poll_end = cur = ktime_get();
+ cpu_relax();
} while (kvm_vcpu_can_poll(cur, stop));
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists