[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] sched/fair: Penalty the cfs task which executes mwait/hlt
Hi Peterz,
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 01:15, Paolo Bonzini <> wrote:
> On 08/01/20 16:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 09:50:01AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >> From: Wanpeng Li <>
> >>
> >> To deliver all of the resources of a server to instances in cloud, there are no
> >> housekeeping cpus reserved. libvirtd, qemu main loop, kthreads, and other agent/tools
> >> etc which can't be offloaded to other hardware like smart nic, these stuff will
> >> contend with vCPUs even if MWAIT/HLT instructions executed in the guest.
> ^^ this is the problem statement:
> He has VCPU threads which are being pinned 1:1 to physical CPUs. He
> needs to have various housekeeping threads preempting those vCPU
> threads, but he'd rather preempt vCPU threads that are doing HLT/MWAIT
> than those that are keeping the CPU busy.

Indeed, thank you Paolo.

> >> The is no trap and yield the pCPU after we expose mwait/hlt to the guest [1][2],
> >> the top command on host still observe 100% cpu utilization since qemu process is
> >> running even though guest who has the power management capability executes mwait.
> >> Actually we can observe the physical cpu has already enter deeper cstate by
> >> powertop on host.
> >>
> >> For virtualization, there is a HLT activity state in CPU VMCS field which indicates
> >> the logical processor is inactive because it executed the HLT instruction, but
> >> SDM 24.4.2 mentioned that execution of the MWAIT instruction may put a logical
> >> processor into an inactive state, however, this VMCS field never reflects this
> >> state.
> >
> > So far I think I can follow, however it does not explain who consumes
> > this VMCS state if it is set and how that helps. Also, this:
> I think what Wanpeng was saying is: "KVM could gather this information
> using the activity state field in the VMCS. However, when the guest
> does MWAIT the processor can go into an inactive state without updating
> the VMCS." Hence looking at the APERFMPERF ratio.

Ditto. :)

> >> This patch avoids fine granularity intercept and reschedule vCPU if MWAIT/HLT
> >> instructions executed, because it can worse the message-passing workloads which
> >> will switch between idle and running frequently in the guest. Lets penalty the
> >> vCPU which is long idle through tick-based sampling and preemption.
> >
> > is just complete gibberish. And I have no idea what problem you're
> > trying to solve how.
> This is just explaining why MWAIT and HLT is not being trapped in his
> setup. (Because vmexit on HLT or MWAIT is awfully expensive).

Ditto. Peterz, do you have nicer solution for this?


> > Also, I don't think the TSC/MPERF ratio is architected, we can't assume
> > this is true for everything that has APERFMPERF.
> Right, you have to look at APERF/MPERF, not TSC/MPERF. My scheduler-fu
> is zero so I can't really help with a nicer solution.
> Paolo

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-09 12:55    [W:0.062 / U:1.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site