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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190507185647.GA29409@amt.cnet> <CANRm+Cx8zCDG6Oz1m9eukkmx_uVFYcQOdMwZrHwsQcbLm_kuPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190514135022.GD4392@amt.cnet> <20190514152015.GM20906@char.us.oracle.com> <20190514174235.GA12269@amt.cnet>
In-Reply-To: <20190514174235.GA12269@amt.cnet>
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 May 2019 09:42:48 +0800
Message-ID: <CANRm+CytV7PfS++RnYU0P3HT_QBufrO=bzd6Fx-7dC2=sotvmA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: introduce configurable delay before entering idle
To:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Cc:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 02:20, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:20:15AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:50:23AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 05:20:37PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 02:57, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Certain workloads perform poorly on KVM compared to baremetal
> > > > > due to baremetal's ability to perform mwait on NEED_RESCHED
> > > > > bit of task flags (therefore skipping the IPI).
> > > >
> > > > KVM supports expose mwait to the guest, if it can solve this?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Wanpeng Li
> > >
> > > Unfortunately mwait in guest is not feasible (uncompatible with multiple
> > > guests). Checking whether a paravirt solution is possible.
> >
> > There is the obvious problem with that the guest can be malicious and
> > provide via the paravirt solution bogus data. That is it expose 0% CPU
> > usage but in reality be mining and using 100%.
>
> The idea is to have a hypercall for the guest to perform the
> need_resched=1 bit set. It can only hurt itself.

This lets me recall the patchset from aliyun
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/22/296 They poll after
__current_set_polling() in do_idle() so avoid this hypercall I think.
Btw, do you get SAP HANA by 5-10% bonus even if adaptive halt-polling
is enabled?

Regards,
Wanpeng Li