sched/core: Don't schedule threads on pre-empted vCPUs
In paravirt configurations today, spinlocks figure out whether a vCPU is running to determine whether or not spinlock should bother spinning. We can use the same logic to prioritize CPUs when scheduling threads. If a vCPU has been pre-empted, it will incur the extra cost of VMENTER and the time it actually spends to be running on the host CPU. If we had other vCPUs which were actually running on the host CPU and idle we should schedule threads there. Performance numbers: Note: With patch is referred to as Paravirt in the following and without patch is referred to as Base. 1) When only 1 VM is running: a) Hackbench test on KVM 8 vCPUs, 10,000 loops (lower is better): +-------+-----------------+----------------+ |Number |Paravirt |Base | |of +---------+-------+-------+--------+ |Threads|Average |Std Dev|Average| Std Dev| +-------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ |1 |1.817 |0.076 |1.721 | 0.067 | |2 |3.467 |0.120 |3.468 | 0.074 | |4 |6.266 |0.035 |6.314 | 0.068 | |8 |11.437 |0.105 |11.418 | 0.132 | |16 |21.862 |0.167 |22.161 | 0.129 | |25 |33.341 |0.326 |33.692 | 0.147 | +-------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ 2) When two VMs are running with same CPU affinities: a) tbench test on VM 8 cpus Base: VM1: Throughput 220.59 MB/sec 1 clients 1 procs max_latency=12.872 ms Throughput 448.716 MB/sec 2 clients 2 procs max_latency=7.555 ms Throughput 861.009 MB/sec 4 clients 4 procs max_latency=49.501 ms Throughput 1261.81 MB/sec 7 clients 7 procs max_latency=76.990 ms VM2: Throughput 219.937 MB/sec 1 clients 1 procs max_latency=12.517 ms Throughput 470.99 MB/sec 2 clients 2 procs max_latency=12.419 ms Throughput 841.299 MB/sec 4 clients 4 procs max_latency=37.043 ms Throughput 1240.78 MB/sec 7 clients 7 procs max_latency=77.489 ms Paravirt: VM1: Throughput 222.572 MB/sec 1 clients 1 procs max_latency=7.057 ms Throughput 485.993 MB/sec 2 clients 2 procs max_latency=26.049 ms Throughput 947.095 MB/sec 4 clients 4 procs max_latency=45.338 ms Throughput 1364.26 MB/sec 7 clients 7 procs max_latency=145.124 ms VM2: Throughput 224.128 MB/sec 1 clients 1 procs max_latency=4.564 ms Throughput 501.878 MB/sec 2 clients 2 procs max_latency=11.061 ms Throughput 965.455 MB/sec 4 clients 4 procs max_latency=45.370 ms Throughput 1359.08 MB/sec 7 clients 7 procs max_latency=168.053 ms b) Hackbench with 4 fd 1,000,000 loops +-------+--------------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ |Number |Paravirt |Base | |of +----------+--------+---------+--------+----------+--------+---------+----------+ |Threads|Average1 |Std Dev1|Average2 | Std Dev|Average1 |Std Dev1|Average2 | Std Dev 2| +-------+----------+--------+---------+--------+----------+--------+---------+----------+ | 1 | 3.748 | 0.620 | 3.576 | 0.432 | 4.006 | 0.395 | 3.446 | 0.787 | +-------+----------+--------+---------+--------+----------+--------+---------+----------+ Note that this test was run just to show the interference effect over-subscription can have in baseline c) schbench results with 2 message groups on 8 vCPU VMs +-----------+-------+---------------+--------------+------------+ | | | Paravirt | Base | | +-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------------+ | |Threads| VM1 | VM2 | VM1 | VM2 |%Improvement| +-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------------+ |50.0000th | 1 | 52 | 53 | 58 | 54 | +6.25% | |75.0000th | 1 | 69 | 61 | 83 | 59 | +8.45% | |90.0000th | 1 | 80 | 80 | 89 | 83 | +6.98% | |95.0000th | 1 | 83 | 83 | 93 | 87 | +7.78% | |*99.0000th | 1 | 92 | 94 | 99 | 97 | +5.10% | |99.5000th | 1 | 95 | 100 | 102 | 103 | +4.88% | |99.9000th | 1 | 107 | 123 | 105 | 203 | +25.32% | +-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------------+ |50.0000th | 2 | 56 | 62 | 67 | 59 | +6.35% | |75.0000th | 2 | 69 | 75 | 80 | 71 | +4.64% | |90.0000th | 2 | 80 | 82 | 90 | 81 | +5.26% | |95.0000th | 2 | 85 | 87 | 97 | 91 | +8.51% | |*99.0000th | 2 | 98 | 99 | 107 | 109 | +8.79% | |99.5000th | 2 | 107 | 105 | 109 | 116 | +5.78% | |99.9000th | 2 | 9968 | 609 | 875 | 3116 | -165.02% | +-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------------+ |50.0000th | 4 | 78 | 77 | 78 | 79 | +1.27% | |75.0000th | 4 | 98 | 106 | 100 | 104 | 0.00% | |90.0000th | 4 | 987 | 1001 | 995 | 1015 | +1.09% | |95.0000th | 4 | 4136 | 5368 | 5752 | 5192 | +13.16% | |*99.0000th | 4 | 11632 | 11344 | 11024| 10736| -5.59% | |99.5000th | 4 | 12624 | 13040 | 12720| 12144| -3.22% | |99.9000th | 4 | 13168 | 18912 | 14992| 17824| +2.24% | +-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------------+ Note: Improvement is measured for (VM1+VM2) Signed-off-by: Rohit Jain <rohit.k.jain@oracle.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: dhaval.giani@oracle.com Cc: matt@codeblueprint.co.uk Cc: steven.sistare@oracle.com Cc: subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1525294330-7759-1-git-send-email-rohit.k.jain@oracle.comSigned-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment