Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Cc:     "the arch\/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        devel@linuxdriverproject.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@microsoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com,
        "Michael Kelley \(EOSG\)" <Michael.H.Kelley@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86/hyper-v: optimize PV IPIs
References: <20180622170625.30688-1-vkuznets@redhat.com>
        <CANRm+CwNfOkosECeSGaXXDaqTDvh1u228ztU8C5Xe95FGgNsFQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <8736x8h8wu.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jun 2018 18:27:46 +0200
In-Reply-To: <8736x8h8wu.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> (Vitaly Kuznetsov's message
        of "Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:32:17 +0200")
Message-ID: <87o9fuev0d.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> writes:

> Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Vitaly, (fix my reply mess this time)
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 at 01:09, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> When reviewing my "x86/hyper-v: use cheaper HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_
>>> {LIST,SPACE} hypercalls when possible" patch Michael suggested to apply the
>>> same idea to PV IPIs. Here we go!
>>>
>>> Despite what Hyper-V TLFS says about HVCALL_SEND_IPI hypercall, it can
>>> actually be 'fast' (passing parameters through registers). Use that too.
>>>
>>> This series can collide with my "KVM: x86: hyperv: PV IPI support for
>>> Windows guests" series as I rename ipi_arg_non_ex/ipi_arg_ex structures
>>> there. Depending on which one gets in first we may need to do tiny
>>> adjustments.
>>
>> As hyperv PV TLB flush has already been merged, is there any other
>> obvious multicast IPIs scenarios? qemu supports interrupt remapping
>> since two years ago, I think windows guest can switch to cluster mode
>> after entering x2APIC, so sending IPI per cluster. In addition, you
>> can also post the benchmark result for this PV IPI optimization,
>> although it also fixes the bug which you mentioned above.
>
> I got confused, which of my patch series are you actually looking at?
> :-)
>
> This particular one ("x86/hyper-v: optimize PV IPIs") is not about
> KVM/qemu, it is for Linux running on top on real Hyper-V server. We
> already support PV IPIs and here I'm just trying to optimize the way how
> we send them by switching to a cheaper hypercall (and using 'fast'
> version of it) when possible. I don't actually have a good benchmark
> (and I don't remember seeing one when K.Y. posted PV IPI support) but
> this can be arranged I guess: I can write a dump 'IPI sender' in kernel
> and send e.g. 1000 IPIs.

So I used the IPI benchmark (https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/19/141,
thanks for the tip!) on this series. On a 16 vCPU guest (WS2016) I'm
getting the following:

Before:
Dry-run:		0		203110
Self-IPI:		6167430		11645550
Normal IPI:		380479300	475881820
Broadcast IPI:		0		2557371420

After:
Dry-run:		0		214280     (not interesting)
Self-IPI:		5706210		10697640   (- 8%)
Normal IPI:		379330010	450158830  (- 5%)
Broadcast IPI:		0		2340427160 (- 8%)

-- 
  Vitaly