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

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V
[off-list ref] wrote:

Paul Mackerras [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:48:36PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:

quoted

On 15.01.2014, at 07:36, Liu ping fan [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Alexander Graf [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 11.12.2013, at 09:47, Liu Ping Fan [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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)

quoted

quoted

If my suppose is correct, will CCing kvm@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 )

Thx,
Fan

-aneesh