Virtualization - Jul 2021 - [RFC 0/3] cpuidle: add poll_source API and virtio vq polling

? 2021/7/14 ??12:19, Stefan Hajnoczi ??:
> These patches are not polished yet but I would like request feedback on
this
> approach and share performance results with you.
>
> Idle CPUs tentatively enter a busy wait loop before halting when the
cpuidle
> haltpoll driver is enabled inside a virtual machine. This reduces wakeup
> latency for events that occur soon after the vCPU becomes idle.
>
> This patch series extends the cpuidle busy wait loop with the new
poll_source
> API so drivers can participate in polling. Such polling-aware drivers
disable
> their device's irq during the busy wait loop to avoid the cost of
interrupts.
> This reduces latency further than regular cpuidle haltpoll, which still
relies
> on irqs.
>
> Virtio drivers are modified to use the poll_source API so all virtio device
> types get this feature. The following virtio-blk fio benchmark results show
the
> improvement:
>
>               IOPS (numjobs=4, iodepth=1, 4 virtqueues)
>                 before   poll_source      io_poll
> 4k randread    167102  186049 (+11%)  186654 (+11%)
> 4k randwrite   162204  181214 (+11%)  181850 (+12%)
> 4k randrw      159520  177071 (+11%)  177928 (+11%)
>
> The comparison against io_poll shows that cpuidle poll_source achieves
> equivalent performance to the block layer's io_poll feature (which I
> implemented in a separate patch series [1]).
>
> The advantage of poll_source is that applications do not need to explicitly
set
> the RWF_HIPRI I/O request flag. The poll_source approach is attractive
because
> few applications actually use RWF_HIPRI and it takes advantage of CPU
cycles we
> would have spent in cpuidle haltpoll anyway.
>
> The current series does not improve virtio-net. I haven't investigated
deeply,
> but it is possible that NAPI and poll_source do not combine. See the final
> patch for a starting point on making the two work together.
>
> I have not tried this on bare metal but it might help there too. The cost
of
> disabling a device's irq must be less than the savings from avoiding
irq
> handling for this optimization to make sense.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20210520141305.355961-1-stefanha at
redhat.com/

Hi Stefan:

Some questions:

1) What's the advantages of introducing polling at virtio level instead 
of doing it at each subsystems? Polling in virtio level may only work 
well if all (or most) of the devices are virtio
2) What's the advantages of using cpuidle instead of using a thread (and 
leverage the scheduler)?
3) Any reason it's virtio_pci specific not a general virtio one?

Thanks

(Btw, do we need to cc scheduler guys?)

>
> Stefan Hajnoczi (3):
>    cpuidle: add poll_source API
>    virtio: add poll_source virtqueue polling
>    softirq: participate in cpuidle polling
>
>   drivers/cpuidle/Makefile           |   1 +
>   drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.h |   7 ++
>   include/linux/interrupt.h          |   2 +
>   include/linux/poll_source.h        |  53 +++++++++++++++
>   include/linux/virtio.h             |   2 +
>   include/linux/virtio_config.h      |   2 +
>   drivers/cpuidle/poll_source.c      | 102 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c       |   6 ++
>   drivers/virtio/virtio.c            |  34 ++++++++++
>   drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c |  86 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_modern.c |   2 +
>   kernel/softirq.c                   |  14 ++++
>   12 files changed, 311 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 include/linux/poll_source.h
>   create mode 100644 drivers/cpuidle/poll_source.c
>

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:29:55AM +0800, Jason Wang
wrote:
> 
> ? 2021/7/14 ??12:19, Stefan Hajnoczi ??:
> > These patches are not polished yet but I would like request feedback
on this
> > approach and share performance results with you.
> > 
> > Idle CPUs tentatively enter a busy wait loop before halting when the
cpuidle
> > haltpoll driver is enabled inside a virtual machine. This reduces
wakeup
> > latency for events that occur soon after the vCPU becomes idle.
> > 
> > This patch series extends the cpuidle busy wait loop with the new
poll_source
> > API so drivers can participate in polling. Such polling-aware drivers
disable
> > their device's irq during the busy wait loop to avoid the cost of
interrupts.
> > This reduces latency further than regular cpuidle haltpoll, which
still relies
> > on irqs.
> > 
> > Virtio drivers are modified to use the poll_source API so all virtio
device
> > types get this feature. The following virtio-blk fio benchmark results
show the
> > improvement:
> > 
> >               IOPS (numjobs=4, iodepth=1, 4 virtqueues)
> >                 before   poll_source      io_poll
> > 4k randread    167102  186049 (+11%)  186654 (+11%)
> > 4k randwrite   162204  181214 (+11%)  181850 (+12%)
> > 4k randrw      159520  177071 (+11%)  177928 (+11%)
> > 
> > The comparison against io_poll shows that cpuidle poll_source achieves
> > equivalent performance to the block layer's io_poll feature (which
I
> > implemented in a separate patch series [1]).
> > 
> > The advantage of poll_source is that applications do not need to
explicitly set
> > the RWF_HIPRI I/O request flag. The poll_source approach is attractive
because
> > few applications actually use RWF_HIPRI and it takes advantage of CPU
cycles we
> > would have spent in cpuidle haltpoll anyway.
> > 
> > The current series does not improve virtio-net. I haven't
investigated deeply,
> > but it is possible that NAPI and poll_source do not combine. See the
final
> > patch for a starting point on making the two work together.
> > 
> > I have not tried this on bare metal but it might help there too. The
cost of
> > disabling a device's irq must be less than the savings from
avoiding irq
> > handling for this optimization to make sense.
> > 
> > [1]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20210520141305.355961-1-stefanha at
redhat.com/
> 
> 
> Hi Stefan:
> 
> Some questions:
> 
> 1) What's the advantages of introducing polling at virtio level instead
of
> doing it at each subsystems? Polling in virtio level may only work well if
> all (or most) of the devices are virtio
I'm not sure I understand the question. cpuidle haltpoll benefits all
devices today, except it incurs interrupt latency. The poll_source API
eliminates the interrupt latency for drivers that can disable device
interrupts cheaply.

This patch adds poll_source to core virtio code so that all virtio
drivers get this feature for free. No driver-specific changes are
needed.

If you mean networking, block layer, etc by "subsystems" then
there's
nothing those subsystems can do to help. Whether poll_source can be used
depends on the specific driver, not the subsystem. If you consider
drivers/virtio/ a subsystem, then that's exactly what the patch series
is doing.
> 2) What's the advantages of using cpuidle instead of using a thread
(and
> leverage the scheduler)?
In order to combine with the existing cpuidle infrastructure. No new
polling loop is introduced and no additional CPU cycles are spent on
polling.

If cpuidle itself is converted to threads then poll_source would
automatically operate in a thread too, but this patch series doesn't
change how the core cpuidle code works.
> 3) Any reason it's virtio_pci specific not a general virtio one?
Good idea, it is possible to move the virtio_pci changes into virtio.c.

Other transports can't use this feature yet though. Only virtio_pci
supports vq irq affinity. But the code can be generic and if other
transports ever support vq irq affinity they'll get it for free.
> (Btw, do we need to cc scheduler guys?)
I'm not sure. This patch series doesn't change how cpuidle interacts
with the scheduler. The cpuidle maintainers can pull in more people, if
necessary.

Stefan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/attachments/20210721/9eb552dd/attachment-0001.sig>