[PATCH 0/4] powernv: kvm: numa fault improvement

Liu ping fan kernelfans at gmail.com
Wed Jan 22 19:33:49 EST 2014

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V
<aneesh.kumar at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Paul Mackerras <paulus at samba.org> writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:48:36PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> On 15.01.2014, at 07:36, Liu ping fan <kernelfans at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On 11.12.2013, at 09:47, Liu Ping Fan <kernelfans at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> This series is based on Aneesh's series  "[PATCH -V2 0/5] powerpc: mm: Numa faults support for ppc64"
>>> >>>
>>> >>> For this series, I apply the same idea from the previous thread "[PATCH 0/3] optimize for powerpc _PAGE_NUMA"
>>> >>> (for which, I still try to get a machine to show nums)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> But for this series, I think that I have a good justification -- the fact of heavy cost when switching context between guest and host,
>>> >>> which is  well known.
>>> >>
>>> >> This cover letter isn't really telling me anything. Please put a proper description of what you're trying to achieve, why you're trying to achieve what you're trying and convince your readers that it's a good idea to do it the way you do it.
>>> >>
>>> > Sorry for the unclear message. After introducing the _PAGE_NUMA,
>>> > kvmppc_do_h_enter() can not fill up the hpte for guest. Instead, it
>>> > should rely on host's kvmppc_book3s_hv_page_fault() to call
>>> > do_numa_page() to do the numa fault check. This incurs the overhead
>>> > when exiting from rmode to vmode.  My idea is that in
>>> > kvmppc_do_h_enter(), we do a quick check, if the page is right placed,
>>> > there is no need to exit to vmode (i.e saving htab, slab switching)
>>> >
>>> >>> If my suppose is correct, will CCing kvm at vger.kernel.org from next version.
>>> >>
>>> >> This translates to me as "This is an RFC"?
>>> >>
>>> > Yes, I am not quite sure about it. I have no bare-metal to verify it.
>>> > So I hope at least, from the theory, it is correct.
>>> Paul, could you please give this some thought and maybe benchmark it?
>> OK, once I get Aneesh to tell me how I get to have ptes with
>> _PAGE_NUMA set in the first place. :)
> I guess we want patch 2, Which Liu has sent separately and I have
> reviewed. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.kvm.powerpc.devel/8619
> I am not sure about the rest of the patches in the series.
> We definitely don't want to numa migrate on henter. We may want to do
> that on fault. But even there, IMHO, we should let the host take the
> fault and do the numa migration instead of doing this in guest context.
My patch does NOT do the numa migration in guest context( h_enter).
Instead it just do a pre-check to see whether the numa migration is
needed. If needed, the host will take the fault and do the numa
migration as it currently does. Otherwise, h_enter can directly setup
hpte without HPTE_V_ABSENT.
And since pte_mknuma() is called system-wide periodly, so it has more
possibility that guest will suffer from HPTE_V_ABSENT.(as my previous
reply, I think we should also place the quick check in
kvmppc_hpte_hv_fault )


> -aneesh

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list