Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-103684-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240308223702.1350851-1-seanjc@google.com> <20240308223702.1350851-5-seanjc@google.com>
 <CABgObfa3By9GU9_8FmqHQK-AxWU3ocbBkQK0xXwx2XRDP828dg@mail.gmail.com> <ZfNEEFmTkx-RVuix@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZfNEEFmTkx-RVuix@google.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:43:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CABgObfb7cc+q3qwr_zKk3SXec_3VtbJ5yWAkVwYXdsFQAB1X_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM: x86: MMU changes for 6.9
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:38=E2=80=AFPM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.=
com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 11:37=E2=80=AFPM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@goo=
gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >  - Zap TDP MMU roots at 4KiB granularity to minimize the delay in yie=
lding if
> > >    a reschedule is needed, e.g. if a high priority task needs to run.=
  Because
> > >    KVM doesn't support yielding in the middle of processing a zapped =
non-leaf
> > >    SPTE, zapping at 1GiB granularity can result in multi-millisecond =
lag when
> > >    attempting to schedule in a high priority.
> > >
> >
> > Would 2 MiB provide a nice middle ground?
>
> Not really?
>
> Zapping at 2MiB definitely fixes the worst of the tail latencies, but the=
re is
> still a measurable difference between 2MiB and 4KiB.

Yeah, but you said multi millisecond so I guessed 5/512 is a 10
microsecond latency, which should be pretty acceptable (for PREEMPT_RT
tests at Red Hat we shoot at 10-15 worst case, so for CONFIG_PREEMPT
it would be more than enough).

> And on the other side of the
> coing, I was unable to observe a meaningful difference in total runtime b=
y zapping
> at 2MiB, or even 1GiB, versus 4KiB.

Ok, that's the answer.

Paolo

> In other words, AFAICT, there's no need to shoot for a middle ground beca=
use trying
> to zap at larger granularities doesn't buy us anything.
>