lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC V9 0/19] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
> >On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
> >>with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series provides
> >>implementation for both Xen and KVM.
> >>
> >>Changes in V9:
> >>- Changed spin_threshold to 32k to avoid excess halt exits that are
> >> causing undercommit degradation (after PLE handler improvement).
> >>- Added kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic (suggested by Gleb)
> >>- Optimized halt exit path to use PLE handler
> >>
> >>V8 of PVspinlock was posted last year. After Avi's suggestions to look
> >>at PLE handler's improvements, various optimizations in PLE handling
> >>have been tried.
> >
> >Sorry for not posting this sooner. I have tested the v9 pv-ticketlock
> >patches in 1x and 2x over-commit with 10-vcpu and 20-vcpu VMs. I have
> >tested these patches with and without PLE, as PLE is still not scalable
> >with large VMs.
> >
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks for testing.
>
> >System: x3850X5, 40 cores, 80 threads
> >
> >
> >1x over-commit with 10-vCPU VMs (8 VMs) all running dbench:
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> > Total
> >Configuration Throughput(MB/s) Notes
> >
> >3.10-default-ple_on 22945 5% CPU in host kernel, 2% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-default-ple_off 23184 5% CPU in host kernel, 2% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-pvticket-ple_on 22895 5% CPU in host kernel, 2% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-pvticket-ple_off 23051 5% CPU in host kernel, 2% spin_lock in guests
> >[all 1x results look good here]
>
> Yes. The 1x results look too close
>
> >
> >
> >2x over-commit with 10-vCPU VMs (16 VMs) all running dbench:
> >-----------------------------------------------------------
> > Total
> >Configuration Throughput Notes
> >
> >3.10-default-ple_on 6287 55% CPU host kernel, 17% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-default-ple_off 1849 2% CPU in host kernel, 95% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-pvticket-ple_on 6691 50% CPU in host kernel, 15% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-pvticket-ple_off 16464 8% CPU in host kernel, 33% spin_lock in guests
>
> I see 6.426% improvement with ple_on
> and 161.87% improvement with ple_off. I think this is a very good sign
> for the patches
>
> >[PLE hinders pv-ticket improvements, but even with PLE off,
> > we still off from ideal throughput (somewhere >20000)]
> >
>
> Okay, The ideal throughput you are referring is getting around atleast
> 80% of 1x throughput for over-commit. Yes we are still far away from
> there.
>
> >
> >1x over-commit with 20-vCPU VMs (4 VMs) all running dbench:
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> > Total
> >Configuration Throughput Notes
> >
> >3.10-default-ple_on 22736 6% CPU in host kernel, 3% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-default-ple_off 23377 5% CPU in host kernel, 3% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-pvticket-ple_on 22471 6% CPU in host kernel, 3% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-pvticket-ple_off 23445 5% CPU in host kernel, 3% spin_lock in guests
> >[1x looking fine here]
> >
>
> I see ple_off is little better here.
>
> >
> >2x over-commit with 20-vCPU VMs (8 VMs) all running dbench:
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> > Total
> >Configuration Throughput Notes
> >
> >3.10-default-ple_on 1965 70% CPU in host kernel, 34% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-default-ple_off 226 2% CPU in host kernel, 94% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-pvticket-ple_on 1942 70% CPU in host kernel, 35% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-pvticket-ple_off 8003 11% CPU in host kernel, 70% spin_lock in guests
> >[quite bad all around, but pv-tickets with PLE off the best so far.
> > Still quite a bit off from ideal throughput]
>
> This is again a remarkable improvement (307%).
> This motivates me to add a patch to disable ple when pvspinlock is on.
> probably we can add a hypercall that disables ple in kvm init patch.
> but only problem I see is what if the guests are mixed.
>
> (i.e one guest has pvspinlock support but other does not. Host
> supports pv)

How about reintroducing the idea to create per-kvm ple_gap,ple_window
state. We were headed down that road when considering a dynamic window at
one point. Then you can just set a single guest's ple_gap to zero, which
would lead to PLE being disabled for that guest. We could also revisit
the dynamic window then.

drew

>
> /me thinks
>
> >
> >In summary, I would state that the pv-ticket is an overall win, but the
> >current PLE handler tends to "get in the way" on these larger guests.
> >
> >-Andrew
> >
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-26 15:01    [W:1.447 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site