Virtualization - Feb 2017 - [PATCH v2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is_preempted() a callee-save function

On 02/10/2017 11:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:43:09AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> It was found when running fio sequential write test with a XFS ramdisk
>> on a VM running on a 2-socket x86-64 system, the %CPU times as reported
>> by perf were as follows:
>>
>>  69.75%  0.59%  fio  [k] down_write
>>  69.15%  0.01%  fio  [k] call_rwsem_down_write_failed
>>  67.12%  1.12%  fio  [k] rwsem_down_write_failed
>>  63.48% 52.77%  fio  [k] osq_lock
>>   9.46%  7.88%  fio  [k] __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempt
>>   3.93%  3.93%  fio  [k] __kvm_vcpu_is_preempted
>>
> Thinking about this again, wouldn't something like the below also work?
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> index 099fcba4981d..6aa33702c15c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> @@ -589,6 +589,7 @@ static void kvm_wait(u8 *ptr, u8 val)
>  	local_irq_restore(flags);
>  }
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
>  __visible bool __kvm_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu)
>  {
>  	struct kvm_steal_time *src = &per_cpu(steal_time, cpu);
> @@ -597,6 +598,31 @@ __visible bool __kvm_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu)
>  }
>  PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(__kvm_vcpu_is_preempted);
>  
> +#else
> +
> +extern bool __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted(int);
> +
> +asm(
> +".pushsection .text;"
> +".global __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted;"
> +".type __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted, @function;"
> +"__raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted:"
> +FRAME_BEGIN
> +"push %rdi;"
> +"push %rdx;"
> +"movslq  %edi, %rdi;"
> +"movq    $steal_time+16, %rax;"
> +"movq    __per_cpu_offset(,%rdi,8), %rdx;"
> +"cmpb    $0, (%rdx,%rax);"
> +"setne   %al;"
> +"pop %rdx;"
> +"pop %rdi;"
> +FRAME_END
> +"ret;"
> +".popsection");
> +
> +#endif
> +
>  /*
>   * Setup pv_lock_ops to exploit KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT if present.
>   */
That should work for now. I have done something similar for
__pv_queued_spin_unlock. However, this has the problem of creating a
dependency on the exact layout of the steal_time structure. Maybe the
constant 16 can be passed in as a parameter offsetof(struct
kvm_steal_time, preempted) to the asm call.

Cheers,
Longman

On 02/10/2017 11:35 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 02/10/2017 11:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:43:09AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> It was found when running fio sequential write test with a XFS
ramdisk
>>> on a VM running on a 2-socket x86-64 system, the %CPU times as
reported
>>> by perf were as follows:
>>>
>>>  69.75%  0.59%  fio  [k] down_write
>>>  69.15%  0.01%  fio  [k] call_rwsem_down_write_failed
>>>  67.12%  1.12%  fio  [k] rwsem_down_write_failed
>>>  63.48% 52.77%  fio  [k] osq_lock
>>>   9.46%  7.88%  fio  [k] __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempt
>>>   3.93%  3.93%  fio  [k] __kvm_vcpu_is_preempted
>>>
>> Thinking about this again, wouldn't something like the below also
work?
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>> index 099fcba4981d..6aa33702c15c 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>> @@ -589,6 +589,7 @@ static void kvm_wait(u8 *ptr, u8 val)
>>  	local_irq_restore(flags);
>>  }
>>  
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
>>  __visible bool __kvm_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu)
>>  {
>>  	struct kvm_steal_time *src = &per_cpu(steal_time, cpu);
>> @@ -597,6 +598,31 @@ __visible bool __kvm_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu)
>>  }
>>  PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(__kvm_vcpu_is_preempted);
>>  
>> +#else
>> +
>> +extern bool __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted(int);
>> +
>> +asm(
>> +".pushsection .text;"
>> +".global __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted;"
>> +".type __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted,
@function;"
>> +"__raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted:"
>> +FRAME_BEGIN
>> +"push %rdi;"
>> +"push %rdx;"
>> +"movslq  %edi, %rdi;"
>> +"movq    $steal_time+16, %rax;"
>> +"movq    __per_cpu_offset(,%rdi,8), %rdx;"
>> +"cmpb    $0, (%rdx,%rax);"
>> +"setne   %al;"
>> +"pop %rdx;"
>> +"pop %rdi;"
>> +FRAME_END
>> +"ret;"
>> +".popsection");
>> +
>> +#endif
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * Setup pv_lock_ops to exploit KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT if present.
>>   */
> That should work for now. I have done something similar for
> __pv_queued_spin_unlock. However, this has the problem of creating a
> dependency on the exact layout of the steal_time structure. Maybe the
> constant 16 can be passed in as a parameter offsetof(struct
> kvm_steal_time, preempted) to the asm call.
>
> Cheers,
> Longman
One more thing, that will improve KVM performance, but it won't help Xen.

I looked into the assembly code for rwsem_spin_on_owner, It need to save
and restore 2 additional registers with my patch. Doing it your way,
will transfer the save and restore overhead to the assembly code.
However, __kvm_vcpu_is_preempted() is called multiple times per
invocation of rwsem_spin_on_owner. That function is simple enough that
making __kvm_vcpu_is_preempted() callee-save won't produce much compiler
optimization opportunity. The outer function rwsem_down_write_failed()
does appear to be a bit bigger (from 866 bytes to 884 bytes) though.

Cheers,
Longman

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:00:43PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> +asm(
> >> +".pushsection .text;"
> >> +".global __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted;"
> >> +".type __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted,
@function;"
> >> +"__raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted:"
> >> +FRAME_BEGIN
> >> +"push %rdi;"
> >> +"push %rdx;"
> >> +"movslq  %edi, %rdi;"
> >> +"movq    $steal_time+16, %rax;"
> >> +"movq    __per_cpu_offset(,%rdi,8), %rdx;"
> >> +"cmpb    $0, (%rdx,%rax);"
Could we not put the $steal_time+16 displacement as an immediate in the
cmpb and save a whole register here?

That way we'd end up with something like:

asm("
push %rdi;
movslq %edi, %rdi;
movq __per_cpu_offset(,%rdi,8), %rax;
cmpb $0, %[offset](%rax);
setne %al;
pop %rdi;
" : : [offset] "i" (((unsigned long)&steal_time) +
offsetof(struct steal_time, preempted)));

And if we could get rid of the sign extend on edi we could avoid all the
push-pop nonsense, but I'm not sure I see how to do that (then again,
this asm foo isn't my strongest point).
> >> +"setne   %al;"
> >> +"pop %rdx;"
> >> +"pop %rdi;"
> >> +FRAME_END
> >> +"ret;"
> >> +".popsection");
> >> +
> >> +#endif
> >> +
> >>  /*
> >>   * Setup pv_lock_ops to exploit KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT if present.
> >>   */
> > That should work for now. I have done something similar for
> > __pv_queued_spin_unlock. However, this has the problem of creating a
> > dependency on the exact layout of the steal_time structure. Maybe the
> > constant 16 can be passed in as a parameter offsetof(struct
> > kvm_steal_time, preempted) to the asm call.
Yeah it should be well possible to pass that in. But ideally we'd have
GCC grow something like __attribute__((callee_saved)) or somesuch and it
would do all this for us.
> One more thing, that will improve KVM performance, but it won't help
Xen.
People still use Xen? ;-) In any case, their implementation looks very
similar and could easily crib this.
> I looked into the assembly code for rwsem_spin_on_owner, It need to save
> and restore 2 additional registers with my patch. Doing it your way,
> will transfer the save and restore overhead to the assembly code.
> However, __kvm_vcpu_is_preempted() is called multiple times per
> invocation of rwsem_spin_on_owner. That function is simple enough that
> making __kvm_vcpu_is_preempted() callee-save won't produce much
compiler
> optimization opportunity.
This is because of that noinline, right? Otherwise it would've been
folded and register pressure would be much higher.
> The outer function rwsem_down_write_failed()
> does appear to be a bit bigger (from 866 bytes to 884 bytes) though.
I suspect GCC is being clever and since all this is static it plays
games with the calling convention and pushes these clobbers out.