Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210303020946.26083-1-lihaiwei.kernel@gmail.com>
 <03239d81-df56-a6c9-c79d-c14d22f62705@gmail.com> <YEgH11nNwdCkF5kT@google.com>
 <CAB5KdOZkdXsLup+58On=LZ6eG4jYdcaK2NCt9U0Q-qy_6dQrfw@mail.gmail.com> <YEwOM3aTeUjVim/i@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <YEwOM3aTeUjVim/i@google.com>
From:   Haiwei Li <lihaiwei.kernel@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:31:17 +0800
Message-ID: <CAB5KdObBa2oiPZpHx_S6V+=TFqb_zet=7tdaqU0y3cVJk2UZuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: lapic: add module parameters for LAPIC_TIMER_ADVANCE_ADJUST_MAX/MIN
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Haiwei Li <lihaiwei@tencent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 8:58 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, Haiwei Li wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 7:42 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021, Haiwei Li wrote:
> > > > On 21/3/3 10:09, lihaiwei.kernel@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > From: Haiwei Li <lihaiwei@tencent.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > In my test environment, advance_expire_delta is frequently greater than
> > > > > the fixed LAPIC_TIMER_ADVANCE_ADJUST_MAX. And this will hinder the
> > > > > adjustment.
> > > >
> > > > Supplementary details:
> > > >
> > > > I have tried to backport timer related features to our production
> > > > kernel.
> > > >
> > > > After completed, i found that advance_expire_delta is frequently greater
> > > > than the fixed value. It's necessary to trun the fixed to dynamically
> > > > values.
> > >
> > > Does this reproduce on an upstream kernel?  If so...
> > >
> > >   1. How much over the 10k cycle limit is the delta?
> > >   2. Any idea what causes the large delta?  E.g. is there something that can
> > >      and/or should be fixed elsewhere?
> > >   3. Is it platform/CPU specific?
> >
> > Hi, Sean
> >
> > I have traced the flow on our production kernel and it frequently consumes more
> > than 10K cycles from sched_out to sched_in.
> > So two scenarios tested on Cascade lake Server(96 pcpu), v5.11 kernel.
> >
> > 1. only cyclictest in guest(88 vcpu and bound with isolated pcpus, w/o mwait
> > exposed, adaptive advance lapic timer is default -1). The ratio of occurrences:
> >
> > greater_than_10k/total: 29/2060, 1.41%
> >
> > 2. cyclictest in guest(88 vcpu and not bound, w/o mwait exposed, adaptive
> > advance lapic timer is default -1) and stress in host(no isolate). The ratio of
> > occurrences:
> >
> > greater_than_10k/total: 122381/1017363, 12.03%
>
> Hmm, I'm inclined to say this is working as intended.  If the vCPU isn't affined
> and/or it's getting preempted, then large spikes are expected, and not adjusting
> in reaction to those spikes is desirable.  E.g. adjusting by 20k cycles because
> the timer happened to expire while a vCPU was preempted will cause KVM to busy
> wait for quite a long time if the next timer runs without interference, and then
> KVM will thrash the advancement.
>
> And I don't really see the point in pushing the max adjustment beyond 10k.  The
> max _advancement_ is 5000ns, which means that even with a blazing fast 5.0ghz
> system, a max adjustment of 1250 (10k/ 8, the step divisor) should get KVM to
> the 25000 cycle advancement limit relatively quickly.  Since KVM resets to the
> initial 1000ns advancement when it would exceed the 5000ns max, I suspect that
> raising the max adjustment much beyond 10k cycles would quickly push a vCPU to
> the max, cause it to reset, and rinse and repeat.
>
> Note, we definitely don't want to raise the 5000ns max, as waiting with IRQs
> disabled for any longer than that will likely cause system instability.

I see. Thanks for your explanation.

--
Haiwei Li