lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC v3 3/6] sched/idle: Add a generic poll before enter real idle path
From
Date


On 2017-11-16 17:45, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 16/11/2017 10:12, Quan Xu wrote:
>>
>> On 2017-11-16 06:03, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 06:06:02PM +0800, Quan Xu wrote:
>>>>> From: Yang Zhang <yang.zhang.wz@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Implement a generic idle poll which resembles the functionality
>>>>> found in arch/. Provide weak arch_cpu_idle_poll function which
>>>>> can be overridden by the architecture code if needed.
>>>> No, we want less of those magic hooks, not more.
>>>>
>>>>> Interrupts arrive which may not cause a reschedule in idle loops.
>>>>> In KVM guest, this costs several VM-exit/VM-entry cycles, VM-entry
>>>>> for interrupts and VM-exit immediately. Also this becomes more
>>>>> expensive than bare metal. Add a generic idle poll before enter
>>>>> real idle path. When a reschedule event is pending, we can bypass
>>>>> the real idle path.
>>>> Why not do a HV specific idle driver?
>>> If I understand the problem correctly then he wants to avoid the heavy
>>> lifting in tick_nohz_idle_enter() in the first place, but there is
>>> already
>>> an interesting quirk there which makes it exit early.  See commit
>>> 3c5d92a0cfb5 ("nohz: Introduce arch_needs_cpu"). The reason for this
>>> commit
>>> looks similar. But lets not proliferate that. I'd rather see that go
>>> away.
>> agreed.
>>
>> Even we can get more benifit than commit 3c5d92a0cfb5 ("nohz: Introduce
>> arch_needs_cpu")
>> in kvm guest. I won't proliferate that..
>>
>>> But the irq_timings stuff is heading into the same direction, with a more
>>> complex prediction logic which should tell you pretty good how long that
>>> idle period is going to be and in case of an interrupt heavy workload
>>> this
>>> would skip the extra work of stopping and restarting the tick and
>>> provide a
>>> very good input into a polling decision.
>>
>> interesting. I have tested with IRQ_TIMINGS related code, which seems
>> not working so far.
> I don't know how you tested it, can you elaborate what you meant by
> "seems not working so far" ?

Daniel, I tried to enable IRQ_TIMINGS* manually. used
irq_timings_next_event()
to return estimation of the earliest interrupt. However I got a constant.

> There are still some work to do to be more efficient. The prediction
> based on the irq timings is all right if the interrupts have a simple
> periodicity. But as soon as there is a pattern, the current code can't
> handle it properly and does bad predictions.
>
> I'm working on a self-learning pattern detection which is too heavy for
> the kernel, and with it we should be able to detect properly the
> patterns and re-ajust the period if it changes. I'm in the process of
> making it suitable for kernel code (both math and perf).
>
> One improvement which can be done right now and which can help you is
> the interrupts rate on the CPU. It is possible to compute it and that
> will give an accurate information for the polling decision.
>
>
As tglx said, talk to each other / work together to make it usable for
all use cases.
could you share how to enable it to get the interrupts rate on the CPU?
I can try it
in cloud scenario. of course, I'd like to work with you to improve it.

Quan
Alibaba Cloud

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-20 08:06    [W:0.070 / U:34.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site