[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] Core parking feature enable

Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 17.02.12 at 18:48, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 17.02.12 at 09:54, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> wrote: 
>>>> Core parking is a power control feature and it can co-work with
>>>> NPTM to control system power budget through online/offline some
>>>> CPUs in the system. These patches implement core parking feature
>>>> for xen. They consist of 2 parts: dom0 patches and xen hypervisor
>>>> patches. 
>>>> At dom0 side, patches include
>>>> [Patch 1/3] intercept native pad (Processor Aggregator Device)
>>>> logic, providing a native interface for natvie platform and a
>>>> paravirt template for paravirt platform, so that os can implicitly
>>>> hook to proper ops accordingly; [Patch 2/3] redirect paravirt
>>>> template to Xen pv ops; [Patch 3/3] implement Xen pad logic, and
>>>> when getting pad device notification, it hypercalls to Xen
>>>> hypervisor for core parking. Due to the characteristic of xen
>>>> continue_hypercall_on_cpu, dom0 seperately send/get core parking
>>>> request/result; 
>>>> At Xen hypervisor side, patches include
>>>> [Patch 1/2] implement hypercall through which dom0 send core
>>>> parking request, and get core parking result;
>>>> [Patch 2/2] implement Xen core parking. Different core parking
>>>> sequence has different power/performance result, due to cpu
>>>> socket/core/thread topology. This patch provide power-first and
>>>> performance-first policies, users can choose core parking policy on
>>>> their own demand, considering power and performance tradeoff.
>>> Does this really need to be implemented in the hypervisor? All this
>>> boils down to is a wrapper around cpu_down() and cpu_up(), which
>>> have hypercall interfaces already. So I'd rather see this as being
>>> an extension to Dom0's pCPU management patches (which aren't
>>> upstream afaict)... 
>>> Jan
>> It's a design choice. Core parking is not only a wrapper around
>> cpu_down/up, it also involves policy algorithms which depend on
>> physical cpu topology and cpu_online/present_map, etc. Implement
>> core parking at dom0 side need expose all those information to dom0,
>> with potential issues (like coherence), while dom0 still need do
>> same work as hypervisor. 
>> Our idea is to keep dom0 as ACPI parser, then hypercall and do rest
>> things at hypervisor side.
> Actually, after some more thought, I don't even think this ought to
> be implemented in the Dom0 kernel, but in user space altogether.
> Afaict all information necessary is already being exposed.

No, user space lack necessary information. If I didn't misunderstand, it has 
some dom0-side dependencies not ready now, like
1. sysfs interface, and exposing xen pcpu topology and maps;
2. intecept pad notify and call usermodehelper;
3. a daemon to monitor/policy core parking (daemon enable when linux run as 
pvops under xen (kernel acpi_pad disable now), daemon disable when linux run 
under baremetal (kernel acpi_pad enable now))

Seems keep same approach as native kernel which handle acpi_pad in kernel side 
(for us, in hypervisor side) is a reasonable choice. Per my understanding core 
parking is a co-work part of NPTM, the whole process is basically a remote 
controller-microengine-bios-kernel process, not necessarily involve user action.

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.