diff mbox series

locking/paravirt: Fix performance regression on core bonded vCPU

Message ID MEYP282MB402614DB5A4625255B689F06C3389@MEYP282MB4026.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
State New
Headers
Series locking/paravirt: Fix performance regression on core bonded vCPU |

Commit Message

johnnyaiai Nov. 3, 2022, 12:13 p.m. UTC 
  From: johnnyaiai <johnnyaiai@tencent.com>

virt_spin_lock() is preferred over native qspinlock when
vCPU is preempted. But brings a lot of regression while
vCPU is not preempted. Provide a early param 'novirtlock'
to choose would be better.

will-it-scale/lock2_threads -s 10 -t 64
baseline    afterpatch
559938       2166135

Signed-off-by: johnnyaiai <johnnyaiai@tencent.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

Comments

Juergen Gross Nov. 3, 2022, 1:22 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 03.11.22 13:13, johnnyaiai wrote:
> From: johnnyaiai <johnnyaiai@tencent.com>
> 
> virt_spin_lock() is preferred over native qspinlock when
> vCPU is preempted. But brings a lot of regression while
> vCPU is not preempted. Provide a early param 'novirtlock'
> to choose would be better.
> 
> will-it-scale/lock2_threads -s 10 -t 64
> baseline    afterpatch
> 559938       2166135
> 
> Signed-off-by: johnnyaiai <johnnyaiai@tencent.com>

That is exactly the purpose of the existing nopvspin parameter.


Juergen
johnnyaiai Nov. 3, 2022, 1:58 p.m. UTC | #2 
Thanks for reply! I think nopvspin parameters controls
pvspinlock or native spinlock. a vm guest always running
on virtspin wheather nopvspin sets or not when EXITS_HALT
not supported by hypervisor. So provide a missing parameter
'novirtspin'.
Juergen Gross Nov. 3, 2022, 2:09 p.m. UTC | #3 
On 03.11.22 14:58, johnnyaiai wrote:
> Thanks for reply! I think nopvspin parameters controls
> pvspinlock or native spinlock. a vm guest always running
> on virtspin wheather nopvspin sets or not when EXITS_HALT
> not supported by hypervisor. So provide a missing parameter
> 'novirtspin'.

Your patch is doing:

     static_branch_disable(&virt_spin_lock_key);

in case your parameter has been specified.

When running as Xen guest the related coding is doing:

     static_branch_disable(&virt_spin_lock_key);

Only when running as KVM guest there is a difference, but this could be changed
by modifying kvm_spinlock_init().

Having two parameters with the same or very similar semantics is not a good
idea IMO.


Juergen
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c
index 59d3d2763..529cf23fe 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c
@@ -107,6 +107,13 @@  static unsigned paravirt_patch_jmp(void *insn_buff, const void *target,
 
 DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(virt_spin_lock_key);
 
+static __init int parse_novirtspin(char *arg)
+{
+	static_branch_disable(&virt_spin_lock_key);
+	return 0;
+}
+early_param("novirtspin", parse_novirtspin);
+
 void __init native_pv_lock_init(void)
 {
 	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))