[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dc4d14c5-1f04-47d7-b314-e4db62f57665@google.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 14:12:04 +0800
From: Liangyan <liangyan.peng@...edance.com>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc: Bibo Mao <maobibo@...ngson.cn>, pbonzini@...hat.com, vkuznets@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, wanpengli@...cent.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/kvm: Use native qspinlock by
default when realtime hinted
Find one AMD guest(AMD EPYC 9Y24 128-vCPU) to test, it seems about 9%
improvement.
Command: ./Run -c 128 spawn
With virt spin lock:
System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Process Creation 126.0 120449.8 9559.5
========
System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only 9559.5
With qspinlock:
System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Process Creation 126.0 131566.8 10441.8
========
System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 10441.8
Regards,
Liangyan
On 2025/7/3 00:26, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 08:23:58PM +0800, Liangyan wrote:
>> We test that unixbench spawn has big improvement in Intel 8582c 120-CPU
>> guest vm if switch to qspinlock.
>
> And ARM or AMD?
>
>>
>> Command: ./Run -c 120 spawn
>>
>> Use virt_spin_lock:
>> System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX
>> Process Creation 126.0 71878.4 5704.6
>> ========
>> System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 5704.6
>>
>>
>> Use qspinlock:
>> System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX
>> Process Creation 126.0 173566.6 13775.1
>> ========
>> System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only 13775.1
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Liangyan
>>
>> On 2025/7/2 16:19, Bibo Mao wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2025/7/2 下午2:42, Liangyan wrote:
>>>> When KVM_HINTS_REALTIME is set and KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT is clear,
>>>> currently guest will use virt_spin_lock.
>>>> Since KVM_HINTS_REALTIME is set, use native qspinlock should be safe
>>>> and have better performance than virt_spin_lock.
>>> Just be curious, do you have actual data where native qspinlock has
>>> better performance than virt_spin_lock()?
>>>
>>> By my understanding, qspinlock is not friendly with VM. When lock is
>>> released, it is acquired with one by one order in contending queue. If
>>> the first vCPU in contending queue is preempted, the other vCPUs can not
>>> get lock. On physical machine it is almost impossible that CPU
>>> contending lock is preempted.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Bibo Mao
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Liangyan <liangyan.peng@...edance.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 18 +++++++++---------
>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>>>> index 921c1c783bc1..9080544a4007 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>>>> @@ -1072,6 +1072,15 @@ static void kvm_wait(u8 *ptr, u8 val)
>>>> */
>>>> void __init kvm_spinlock_init(void)
>>>> {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Disable PV spinlocks and use native qspinlock when dedicated
>>>> pCPUs
>>>> + * are available.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME)) {
>>>> + pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled with KVM_HINTS_REALTIME
>>>> hints\n");
>>>> + goto out;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> /*
>>>> * In case host doesn't support KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT there is
>>>> still an
>>>> * advantage of keeping virt_spin_lock_key enabled:
>>>> virt_spin_lock() is
>>>> @@ -1082,15 +1091,6 @@ void __init kvm_spinlock_init(void)
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>> - /*
>>>> - * Disable PV spinlocks and use native qspinlock when dedicated
>>>> pCPUs
>>>> - * are available.
>>>> - */
>>>> - if (kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME)) {
>>>> - pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled with KVM_HINTS_REALTIME
>>>> hints\n");
>>>> - goto out;
>>>> - }
>>>> -
>>>> if (num_possible_cpus() == 1) {
>>>> pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled, single CPU\n");
>>>> goto out;
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists