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: <1564643196-7797-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com>
 <7b1e3025-f513-7068-32ac-4830d67b65ac@intel.com> <c3fe182f-627f-88ad-cb4d-a4189202b438@redhat.com>
 <20190803202058.GA9316@amt.cnet>
In-Reply-To: <20190803202058.GA9316@amt.cnet>
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Aug 2019 08:55:29 +0800
Message-ID: <CANRm+CwtHBOVWFcn+6Z3Ds7dEcNL2JP+b6hLRS=oeUW98A24MQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuidle-haltpoll: Enable kvm guest polling when dedicated
 physical CPUs are available
To:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 04:21, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 06:54:49PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 01/08/19 18:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On 8/1/2019 9:06 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > >> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
> > >>
> > >> The downside of guest side polling is that polling is performed even
> > >> with other runnable tasks in the host. However, even if poll in kvm
> > >> can aware whether or not other runnable tasks in the same pCPU, it
> > >> can still incur extra overhead in over-subscribe scenario. Now we ca=
n
> > >> just enable guest polling when dedicated pCPUs are available.
> > >>
> > >> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > >> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> > >> Cc: Radim Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99 <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
> > >> Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
> > >
> > > Paolo, Marcelo, any comments?
> >
> > Yes, it's a good idea.
> >
> > Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> >
> > Paolo
>

Hi Marcelo,

Sorry for the late response.

> I think KVM_HINTS_REALTIME is being abused somewhat.
> It has no clear meaning and used in different locations
> for different purposes.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
KVM_HINTS_REALTIME 0                      guest checks this feature bit to

determine that vCPUs are never

preempted for an unlimited time

allowing optimizations
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Now it disables pv queued spinlock, pv tlb shootdown, pv sched yield
which are not expected present in vCPUs are never preempted for an
unlimited time scenario.

>
> For example, i think that using pv queued spinlocks and
> haltpoll is a desired scenario, which the patch below disallows.

So even if dedicated pCPU is available, pv queued spinlocks should
still be chose if something like vhost-kthreads are used instead of
DPDK/vhost-user. kvm adaptive halt-polling will compete with
vhost-kthreads, however, poll in guest unaware other runnable tasks in
the host which will defeat vhost-kthreads.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li