qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/7] x86: Rework KVM-defaults compat code, enabl


From: Waiman Long
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/7] x86: Rework KVM-defaults compat code, enable kvm_pv_unhalt by default
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 11:15:57 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0

On 10/09/2017 09:39 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 06/10/2017 23:52, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>> This series enables kvm_pv_unhalt by default on pc-*-2.11 and
>> newer.
>>
>> To do that, I first reworked the existing
>> x86_cpu_change_kvm_default() logic to use compat_props instead,
>> so we don't need to make the chain of pc_compat_*() functions
>> grow.
> I've discussed PV spinlocks with some folks at Microsoft for a few weeks
> now, and I'm not 100% sure about enabling kvm_pv_unhalt by default.
> It's probably a good idea overall, but it does come with some caveats.
>
> The problem is that there were two different implementations of fair
> spinlocks in Linux, ticket spinlocks and queued spinlocks.  When
> kvm_pv_unhalt is disabled, ticket spinlocks sucked badly indeed; queued
> spinlocks however simply revert to unfair spinlocks, which loses the
> fairness but has the best performance.  See virt_spin_lock in
> arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h.
>
> Now, fair spinlocks are only really needed for large NUMA machines.
> With a single NUMA node, for example, test-and-set spinlocks work well
> enough; there's not _much_ need for fairness in practice, and the
> paravirtualization does introduce some overhead.
>
> Therefore, the best performance would be achieved with kvm_pv_unhalt
> disabled on small VMs, and enabled on large VMs spanning multiple host
> NUMA nodes.
>
> Waiman, Davidlohr, do you have an opinion on this as well?

I agree. Using unfair lock in a small VM is good for performance. The
only problem I see is how do we define what is small. Now, even a
machine with a single socket can have up to 28 cores, 56 threads. If a
VM has up to 56 vCPUs, we may still want pvqspinlock to be used.

Is the kvm_pv_unhalt flag a global one for all VMs within a machine? Or
can it be different for each VM? We may want to have this flag
dynamically determined depending on the configuration of the VM.

Regards,
Longman




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]