mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Guo, Wangyang" <wangyang.guo@intel.com>
To: lirongqing <lirongqing@baidu.com>,
	seanjc@google.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, vkuznets@redhat.com,
	tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][v2] x86/kvm: Prefer native qspinlock for dedicated vCPUs irrespective of PV_UNHALT
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 10:58:22 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aee6539f-528e-46c7-98c6-e740e4c30a5f@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250722110005.4988-1-lirongqing@baidu.com>

On 7/22/2025 7:00 PM, lirongqing wrote:
> From: Li RongQing <lirongqing@baidu.com>
> 
> The commit b2798ba0b876 ("KVM: X86: Choose qspinlock when dedicated
> physical CPUs are available") states that when PV_DEDICATED=1
> (vCPU has dedicated pCPU), qspinlock should be preferred regardless of
> PV_UNHALT.  However, the current implementation doesn't reflect this: when
> PV_UNHALT=0, we still use virt_spin_lock() even with dedicated pCPUs.
> 
> This is suboptimal because:
> 1. Native qspinlocks should outperform virt_spin_lock() for dedicated
>     vCPUs irrespective of HALT exiting
> 2. virt_spin_lock() should only be preferred when vCPUs may be preempted
>     (non-dedicated case)
> 
> So reorder the PV spinlock checks to:
> 1. First handle dedicated pCPU case (disable virt_spin_lock_key)
> 2. Second check single CPU, and nopvspin configuration
> 3. Only then check PV_UNHALT support
> 
> This ensures we always use native qspinlock for dedicated vCPUs, delivering
> pretty performance gains at high contention levels.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <lirongqing@baidu.com>
> 
> diff with v1: rewrite the changelog
> 
>   arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> index 921c1c7..9cda79f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> @@ -1073,16 +1073,6 @@ static void kvm_wait(u8 *ptr, u8 val)
>   void __init kvm_spinlock_init(void)
>   {
>   	/*
> -	 * In case host doesn't support KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT there is still an
> -	 * advantage of keeping virt_spin_lock_key enabled: virt_spin_lock() is
> -	 * preferred over native qspinlock when vCPU is preempted.
> -	 */
> -	if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT)) {
> -		pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled, no host support\n");
> -		return;
> -	}
> -
> -	/*
>   	 * Disable PV spinlocks and use native qspinlock when dedicated pCPUs
>   	 * are available.
>   	 */
> @@ -1101,6 +1091,16 @@ void __init kvm_spinlock_init(void)
>   		goto out;
>   	}
>   
> +	/*
> +	 * In case host doesn't support KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT there is still an
> +	 * advantage of keeping virt_spin_lock_key enabled: virt_spin_lock() is
> +	 * preferred over native qspinlock when vCPU is preempted.
> +	 */
> +	if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT)) {
> +		pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled, no host support\n");
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
>   	pr_info("PV spinlocks enabled\n");
>   
>   	__pv_init_lock_hash();

For non-overcommit VM, we may add `-overcommit cpu-pm=on` options to 
qemu-kvm and let guest to handle idle by itself and reduce the latency. 
Current kernel will fallback to virt_spin_lock, even kvm-hint-dedicated 
is provided. With this patch, it can fix this problem and use mcs queue 
spinlock for better performance.

Tested-by: Wangyang Guo <wangyang.guo@intel.com>

  reply	other threads:[~2025-08-15  2:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-07-22 11:00 lirongqing
2025-08-15  2:58 ` Guo, Wangyang [this message]
2025-08-15 19:28 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-09-16  0:25 ` Sean Christopherson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=aee6539f-528e-46c7-98c6-e740e4c30a5f@intel.com \
    --to=wangyang.guo@intel.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lirongqing@baidu.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®