On 09/24/2012 08:24 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> This is an RFC since I have not done any comparison with the approach
> using for_each_set_bit() which can be seen in Avi's work.
>
> Takuya
> ---
>
> We did a simple test to see which requests we would get at the same time
> in vcpu_enter_guest() and got the following numbers:
>
> |...........|...............|........|...............|.|
> (N) (E) (S) (ES) others
> 22.3% 30.7% 16.0% 29.5% 1.4%
>
> (N) : Nothing
> (E) : Only KVM_REQ_EVENT
> (S) : Only KVM_REQ_STEAL_UPDATE
> (ES): Only KVM_REQ_EVENT and KVM_REQ_STEAL_UPDATE
>
> * Note that the exact numbers can change for other guests.
What was the workload? STEAL_UPDATE is done on schedules and
heavyweight exit (erronously), so it should be rare.
Or maybe we're recording HLT time as steal time?
>
> This motivated us to optimize the following code in vcpu_enter_guest():
>
> if (vcpu->requests) { /** (1) **/
> ...
> if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_STEAL_UPDATE, vcpu)) /** (2) **/
> record_steal_time(vcpu);
> ...
> }
>
> if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu) || req_int_win) {
> ...
> }
>
> - For case (E), we do kvm_check_request() for every request other than
> KVM_REQ_EVENT in the block (1) and always get false.
> - For case (S) and (ES), the only difference from case (E) is that we
> get true for KVM_REQ_STEAL_UPDATE.
>
> This means that we were wasting a lot of time for the many if branches
> in the block (1) even for these trivial three cases which dominated more
> than 75% in total.
>
> This patch mitigates the issue as follows:
> - For case (E), we change the first if condition to
> if (vcpu->requests & ~(1 << KVM_REQ_EVENT)) /** (1') **/
> so that we can skip the block completely.
> - For case (S) and (ES), we move the check (2) upwards, out of the
> block (1), to clear the KVM_REQ_STEAL_UPDATE flag before doing the
> check (1').
>
> Although this adds one if branch for case (N), the fact that steal
> update occurs frequently enough except when we give each vcpu a
> dedicated core justifies its tiny cost.
Modern processors will eliminate KVM_REQ_EVENT in many cases, so the
optmimization is wasted on them.
Do you have numbers? Just for your patch, not my alternative.
>
> Signed-off-by: Takuya Yoshikawa <[email protected]>
> ---
> [My email address change is not a mistake.]
>
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 11 ++++++++---
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index fc2a0a1..e351902 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -5233,7 +5233,14 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> vcpu->run->request_interrupt_window;
> bool req_immediate_exit = 0;
>
> - if (vcpu->requests) {
> + /*
> + * Getting KVM_REQ_STEAL_UPDATE alone is so common that clearing it now
> + * will hopefully result in skipping the following checks.
> + */
> + if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_STEAL_UPDATE, vcpu))
> + record_steal_time(vcpu);
> +
> + if (vcpu->requests & ~(1 << KVM_REQ_EVENT)) {
> if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD, vcpu))
> kvm_mmu_unload(vcpu);
> if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_MIGRATE_TIMER, vcpu))
> @@ -5267,8 +5274,6 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> r = 1;
> goto out;
> }
> - if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_STEAL_UPDATE, vcpu))
> - record_steal_time(vcpu);
> if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_NMI, vcpu))
> process_nmi(vcpu);
> req_immediate_exit =
>
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
