lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 1/2] kvm: Handle undercommitted guest case in PLE handler
On 10/03/2012 10:35 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/03/2012 02:22 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>> So I think it's worth trying again with ple_window of 20000-40000.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Avi,
>>
>> I ran different benchmarks increasing ple_window, and results does not
>> seem to be encouraging for increasing ple_window.
>
> Thanks for testing! Comments below.
>
>> Results:
>> 16 core PLE machine with 16 vcpu guest.
>>
>> base kernel = 3.6-rc5 + ple handler optimization patch
>> base_pleopt_8k = base kernel + ple window = 8k
>> base_pleopt_16k = base kernel + ple window = 16k
>> base_pleopt_32k = base kernel + ple window = 32k
>>
>>
>> Percentage improvements of benchmarks w.r.t base_pleopt with ple_window = 4096
>>
>> base_pleopt_8k base_pleopt_16k base_pleopt_32k
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> kernbench_1x -5.54915 -15.94529 -44.31562
>> kernbench_2x -7.89399 -17.75039 -37.73498
>
> So, 44% degradation even with no overcommit? That's surprising.

Yes. Kernbench was run with #threads = #vcpu * 2 as usual. Is it
spending 8 times the original ple_window cycles for 16 vcpus
significant?

>
>> I also got perf top output to analyse the difference. Difference comes
>> because of flushtlb (and also spinlock).
>
> That's in the guest, yes?

Yes. Perf is in guest.

>
>>
>> Ebizzy run for 4k ple_window
>> - 87.20% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore
>> - arch_local_irq_restore
>> - 100.00% _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
>> + 52.89% release_pages
>> + 47.10% pagevec_lru_move_fn
>> - 5.71% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore
>> - arch_local_irq_restore
>> + 86.03% default_send_IPI_mask_allbutself_phys
>> + 13.96% default_send_IPI_mask_sequence_phys
>> - 3.10% [kernel] [k] smp_call_function_many
>> smp_call_function_many
>>
>>
>> Ebizzy run for 32k ple_window
>>
>> - 91.40% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore
>> - arch_local_irq_restore
>> - 100.00% _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
>> + 53.13% release_pages
>> + 46.86% pagevec_lru_move_fn
>> - 4.38% [kernel] [k] smp_call_function_many
>> smp_call_function_many
>> - 2.51% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore
>> - arch_local_irq_restore
>> + 90.76% default_send_IPI_mask_allbutself_phys
>> + 9.24% default_send_IPI_mask_sequence_phys
>>
>
> Both the 4k and the 32k results are crazy. Why is
> arch_local_irq_restore() so prominent? Do you have a very high
> interrupt rate in the guest?

How to measure if I have high interrupt rate in guest?
From /proc/interrupt numbers I am not able to judge :(

I went back and got the results on a 32 core machine with 32 vcpu guest.
Strangely, I got result supporting the claim that increasing ple_window
helps for non-overcommitted scenario.

32 core 32 vcpu guest 1x scenarios.

ple_gap = 0
kernbench: Elapsed Time 38.61
ebizzy: 7463 records/s

ple_window = 4k
kernbench: Elapsed Time 43.5067
ebizzy: 2528 records/s

ple_window = 32k
kernebench : Elapsed Time 39.4133
ebizzy: 7196 records/s


perf top for ebizzy for above:
ple_gap = 0
- 84.74% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore
- arch_local_irq_restore
- 100.00% _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
+ 50.96% release_pages
+ 49.02% pagevec_lru_move_fn
- 6.57% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore
- arch_local_irq_restore
+ 92.54% default_send_IPI_mask_allbutself_phys
+ 7.46% default_send_IPI_mask_sequence_phys
- 1.54% [kernel] [k] smp_call_function_many
smp_call_function_many

ple_window = 32k
- 84.47% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore
+ arch_local_irq_restore
- 6.46% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore
- arch_local_irq_restore
+ 93.51% default_send_IPI_mask_allbutself_phys
+ 6.49% default_send_IPI_mask_sequence_phys
- 1.80% [kernel] [k] smp_call_function_many
- smp_call_function_many
+ 99.98% native_flush_tlb_others


ple_window = 4k
- 91.35% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore
- arch_local_irq_restore
- 100.00% _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
+ 53.19% release_pages
+ 46.81% pagevec_lru_move_fn
- 3.90% [kernel] [k] smp_call_function_many
smp_call_function_many
- 2.94% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore
- arch_local_irq_restore
+ 93.12% default_send_IPI_mask_allbutself_phys
+ 6.88% default_send_IPI_mask_sequence_phys

Let me know if I can try something here..
/me confused :(



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-04 13:41    [W:0.144 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site