[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230427112657.GA398143@hu-pkondeti-hyd.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 16:56:57 +0530
From: Pavan Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>
To: "Gupta, Pankaj" <pankaj.gupta@....com>
CC: Pavan Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>,
David Dai <davidai@...gle.com>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
"Sudeep Holla" <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
"Mel Gorman" <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
<kernel-team@...roid.com>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Improve VM DVFS and task placement behavior
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:52:29AM +0200, Gupta, Pankaj wrote:
>
> > > This patch series is a continuation of the talk Saravana gave at LPC 2022
> > > titled "CPUfreq/sched and VM guest workload problems" [1][2][3]. The gist
> > > of the talk is that workloads running in a guest VM get terrible task
> > > placement and DVFS behavior when compared to running the same workload in
> > > the host. Effectively, no EAS for threads inside VMs. This would make power
> > > and performance terrible just by running the workload in a VM even if we
> > > assume there is zero virtualization overhead.
> > >
> > > We have been iterating over different options for communicating between
> > > guest and host, ways of applying the information coming from the
> > > guest/host, etc to figure out the best performance and power improvements
> > > we could get.
> > >
> > > The patch series in its current state is NOT meant for landing in the
> > > upstream kernel. We are sending this patch series to share the current
> > > progress and data we have so far. The patch series is meant to be easy to
> > > cherry-pick and test on various devices to see what performance and power
> > > benefits this might give for others.
> > >
> > > With this series, a workload running in a VM gets the same task placement
> > > and DVFS treatment as it would when running in the host.
> > >
> > > As expected, we see significant performance improvement and better
> > > performance/power ratio. If anyone else wants to try this out for your VM
> > > workloads and report findings, that'd be very much appreciated.
> > >
> > > The idea is to improve VM CPUfreq/sched behavior by:
> > > - Having guest kernel to do accurate load tracking by taking host CPU
> > > arch/type and frequency into account.
> > > - Sharing vCPU run queue utilization information with the host so that the
> > > host can do proper frequency scaling and task placement on the host side.
> > >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > Next steps:
> > > ===========
> > > We are continuing to look into communication mechanisms other than
> > > hypercalls that are just as/more efficient and avoid switching into the VMM
> > > userspace. Any inputs in this regard are greatly appreciated.
> > >
> >
> > I am trying to understand why virtio based cpufrq does not work here?
> > The VMM on host can process requests from guest VM like freq table,
> > current frequency and setting the min_freq. I believe Virtio backend
> > has mechanisms for acceleration (vhost) so that user space is not
> > involved for every frequency request from the guest.
> >
> > It has advantages of (1) Hypervisor agnostic (virtio basically)
> > (2) scheduler does not need additional input, the aggregated min_freq
> > requests from all guest should be sufficient.
>
> Also want to add, 3) virtio based solution would definitely be better from
> performance POV as would avoid expense vmexits which we have with
> hypercalls.
>
>
I just went through the whole discussion, it seems David mentioned he would
re-write this series with virtio frontend and VMM in user space taking
care of the requests. will wait for that series to land.
Thanks,
Pavan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists