linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] KVM: x86: use TPAUSE to replace PAUSE in halt polling

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]

Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2022 11:08:14 +0000
From:   "Mi, Dapeng1" <dapeng1.mi@...el.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        "rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "daniel.lezcano@...aro.org" <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>
CC:     "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com" <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] KVM: x86: use TPAUSE to replace PAUSE in halt polling

> From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 10:08 PM
> To: Mi, Dapeng1 <dapeng1.mi@...el.com>; rafael@...nel.org;
> daniel.lezcano@...aro.org; pbonzini@...hat.com
> Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> kvm@...r.kernel.org; zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] KVM: x86: use TPAUSE to replace PAUSE in halt polling
> 
> From: Dapeng Mi
> > Sent: 24 August 2022 10:11
> >
> > TPAUSE is a new instruction on Intel processors which can instruct
> > processor enters a power/performance optimized state. Halt polling
> > uses PAUSE instruction to wait vCPU is waked up. The polling time
> > could be long and cause extra power consumption in some cases.
> >
> > Use TPAUSE to replace the PAUSE instruction in halt polling to get a
> > better power saving and performance.
> 
> What is the effect on wakeup latency?
> Quite often that is far more important than a bit of power saving.

In theory, the increased wakeup latency should be less than 1us. I thought this latency impaction should be minimal. I ever run two scheduling related benchmarks, hackbench and schbench.  I didn't see this change would obviously impact the performance.

When running these two scheduling benchmarks on host, a FIO workload is running in a Linux VM simultaneously, FIO would trigger a large number of HLT VM-exit and then trigger haltpolling, then we can see how TPAUSE can impact the performance.

Here are the hackbench and schbench data on Intel ADL platform.

Hackbench 		base		TPAUSE		%delta
Group-1		0.056		0.052		7.14%
Group-4		0.165		0.164		0.61%
Group-8		0.313		0.309		1.28%
Group-16		0.834		0.842		-0.96%

Schbench - Latency percentiles (usec)		base 		TPAUSE	
./schbench -m 1
	50.0th					15		13		
	99.0th					221		203
./schbench -m 2
	50.0th					26		23
	99.0th					16368		16544
./schbench -m 4
	50.0th					56		60
	99.0th					33984		34112
 
Since the schbench benchmark is not so stable, but I can see the data is on a same level.

> The automatic entry of sleep states is a PITA already.
> Block 30 RT threads in cv_wait() and then do cv_broadcast().
> Use ftrace to see just how long it takes the last thread to wake up.

I think this test is familiar with the hackbench and schbench, it should have similar result.

Anyway, performance and power is a tradeoff, it depends on which side we think is more important.

> 
> 	David
> 
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1
> 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)