From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Theurer Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V9 0/19] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:50:02 -0500 Message-ID: <1372171802.3804.30.camel__9501.51335350729$1372171919$gmane$org@oc2024037011.ibm.com> References: <20130601192125.5966.35563.sendpatchset@codeblue> Reply-To: habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130601192125.5966.35563.sendpatchset@codeblue> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Raghavendra K T Cc: jeremy@goop.org, gregkh@suse.de, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, drjones@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, andi@firstfloor.org, hpa@zytor.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, x86@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, riel@redhat.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, ouyang@cs.pitt.edu, avi.kivity@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, chegu_vinod@hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com, attilio.rao@citrix.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, stephan.diestelhorst@amd.com List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org 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. 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] 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 [PLE hinders pv-ticket improvements, but even with PLE off, we still off from ideal throughput (somewhere >20000)] 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] 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] 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