On 11/22/18 4:51 PM, Andrii Anisov wrote:
Hello Julien,
Hi Andrii,
On 20.11.18 20:47, Julien Grall wrote:
On 20/11/2018 18:10, Andrii Anisov wrote:
Hello Julien,
On 19.11.18 18:42, Julien Grall wrote:
There are no issue about processing IRQs before the syncs. It is the
same as if an IRQ was raised from ila different pCPUs.
So why do you need that?
From my understanding of gic-vgic code (old vgic), for the IRQs
targeting the `current` vcpu, it leads to a faster processing under
interrupts storm conditions. If it was all LRs set on previous switch
to a guest, a the IRQ will have a chance to go directly to LR instead
of setting on lr_pending queue. Also inflight_irqs queue have a
chance to be shorter to insert.
Do you have actual numbers?
Unfortunately, my numbers are pretty indirect. I'm referring glmark2
benchmark results. With this and the rest of my changes (not yet
published), I can cut out another percent or two of performance drop due
to XEN existence in the system. BTW, that's why I recently asked Stefano
about his approach of interrupt latency measurement.
My biggest worry is you are doing optimization on a vGIC that is not
fully compliant with how a GIC should behave (e.g edge vs level) and
with very fragile locking. If you are interested, Andre can provides
more details.
On my board that benchmark processing causes at least 4 different HW
interrupts issuing with different frequency. Adding the reschedule IRQ
makes the system tend to not fit all IRQs into 4 LRs available in my
GIC. Moreover, the benchmark does not emit a network traffic or disk
usage during the run. So real life cases will add more concurrent IRQs.
Also to be on the same page, what is your definition of interrupts storm?
I mean the system takes different interrupts (more IRQ sources than LRs
available) with a relatively high rate. Let's say more than 7000
interrupts per second. It's not very big number, but close to what I see
on my desk.
Bear in mind that the old vGIC will be phased out soon.
As I remember a new vgic experimental yet. Do not support GIC-v3 yet.
If you are worried about performance, then I would recommend to try
the new vGIC and see whether it improves.
You know, we are based on XEN 4.10. Initially, when a customer said
about their dissatisfaction about performance drop in benchmark due to
XEN existence, I tried 4.12-unstable, both an old and a new VGIC. So
performance with 4.12-unstable with the old VGIC was worse than 4.10,
and the new VGIC made things even much worse. I can't remember the exact
numbers or proportions, but that was the reason we do not offer
upgrading XEN yet.
I can't comment without any numbers here. Bear in mind that we fixed
bugs in Xen 4.12 (including spectre/meltdown and missing barriers) that
wasn't backported to Xen 4.10. It is entirely possible that it
introduced slowness but it also ensure the code is behaving correctly.
Anyway, if there are performance regression we should investigate them
and discuss how we can address/limit them. Similarly for the new vGIC,
if you think it is too slow, then we need to know why before we get rid
of the old vGIC.
Well, if you re-enable the interrupts you give a chance for higher
priority interrupts to come up. This will not happen if you have
interrupts disabled.
I understand the theory, but can not match it with the current XEN code.
Guest interrupts prioritization within do_IRQ is pretty meaningless.
There are no guest prioritization at the moment. However, we may want to
introduce it to give priority to one guest over.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
