From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: paulmck at linux.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 06:50:58 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] rcutorture: Tweak kvm options In-Reply-To: <20190426105413.rajcon4vyzov446c@linutronix.de> References: <20190424073446.8577-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20190424103809.GM3923@linux.ibm.com> <20190424183039.GA4494@linux.ibm.com> <20190425194638.GA7238@linux.ibm.com> <20190426105413.rajcon4vyzov446c@linutronix.de> Message-ID: <20190426135058.GD3923@linux.ibm.com> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:54:14PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2019-04-25 12:46:38 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > And it doesn't like my (admittedly ancient) QEMU, complaining about not > > > knowing about "x2apic=on,tsc-deadline=on,hypervisor=on,tsc_adjust=on". > > > If I remove these, it works. I will be upgrading soon (famous last > > > words), so what I am going to do is queue the following separate > > > not-for-upstream patch that makes it work on my setup. > > > > Also, the !SMP scenarios get this: > > > > :CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=y: improperly set > > I ignored that (because there is a CHECK option to ensure that certain > options are set). True enough, but these things are a bit like compiler warnings in that it is good to have a clean run. > > Would it make sense to only set this on CONFIG_SMP=y runs? The easy > > way to do this is to move it from CFcommon to the scenario files not > > having CONFIG_SMP=n. (Which is how I am currently running, I should have added.) > > having CONFIG_SMP=n. Or would something else work better? > > > > Or am I doing something wrong? > > You should also get that warning on ARM for instance since those > PARAVIRT SPINLOCKS are only implemented on x86. OK, so we would want this to only be added for x86 runs. > I have no numbers to compare the performance with and without that > option. So we could drop that option or you tell me where to look after > a run with/without that option so I can tell if it is worth the effort. One place to look is in the summary output: TREE01 ------- 17540 GPs (58.4667/s) [rcu: g130629 f0x0 ] The "58.4667/s" is the number of grace periods per second. I would be surprised if CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS made a noticeable difference in grace-period rate (given the natural variation), but you never know. Thanx, Paul From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: paulmck@linux.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 06:50:58 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] rcutorture: Tweak kvm options In-Reply-To: <20190426105413.rajcon4vyzov446c@linutronix.de> References: <20190424073446.8577-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20190424103809.GM3923@linux.ibm.com> <20190424183039.GA4494@linux.ibm.com> <20190425194638.GA7238@linux.ibm.com> <20190426105413.rajcon4vyzov446c@linutronix.de> Message-ID: <20190426135058.GD3923@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <20190426135058.mKtwXOvZCyDO70UHHtOdXXPmyS3yGgb3Mv4E0ESWkak@z> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019@12:54:14PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2019-04-25 12:46:38 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > And it doesn't like my (admittedly ancient) QEMU, complaining about not > > > knowing about "x2apic=on,tsc-deadline=on,hypervisor=on,tsc_adjust=on". > > > If I remove these, it works. I will be upgrading soon (famous last > > > words), so what I am going to do is queue the following separate > > > not-for-upstream patch that makes it work on my setup. > > > > Also, the !SMP scenarios get this: > > > > :CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=y: improperly set > > I ignored that (because there is a CHECK option to ensure that certain > options are set). True enough, but these things are a bit like compiler warnings in that it is good to have a clean run. > > Would it make sense to only set this on CONFIG_SMP=y runs? The easy > > way to do this is to move it from CFcommon to the scenario files not > > having CONFIG_SMP=n. (Which is how I am currently running, I should have added.) > > having CONFIG_SMP=n. Or would something else work better? > > > > Or am I doing something wrong? > > You should also get that warning on ARM for instance since those > PARAVIRT SPINLOCKS are only implemented on x86. OK, so we would want this to only be added for x86 runs. > I have no numbers to compare the performance with and without that > option. So we could drop that option or you tell me where to look after > a run with/without that option so I can tell if it is worth the effort. One place to look is in the summary output: TREE01 ------- 17540 GPs (58.4667/s) [rcu: g130629 f0x0 ] The "58.4667/s" is the number of grace periods per second. I would be surprised if CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS made a noticeable difference in grace-period rate (given the natural variation), but you never know. Thanx, Paul From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DEEBC43219 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:51:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266122084F for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:51:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726060AbfDZNvG (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Apr 2019 09:51:06 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:38322 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726039AbfDZNvF (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Apr 2019 09:51:05 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x3QDovD4093628 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 09:51:04 -0400 Received: from e17.ny.us.ibm.com (e17.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.207]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2s42tgss21-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 09:51:03 -0400 Received: from localhost by e17.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:51:02 +0100 Received: from b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.27) by e17.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.204) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:51:00 +0100 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x3QDoxHn18940104 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:50:59 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2B0B2066; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:50:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDEC8B2064; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:50:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.80.206.135]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:50:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 86C2616C6B4C; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 06:50:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 06:50:58 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett , Steven Rostedt , Mathieu Desnoyers , Lai Jiangshan , Shuah Khan Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Tweak kvm options Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20190424073446.8577-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20190424103809.GM3923@linux.ibm.com> <20190424183039.GA4494@linux.ibm.com> <20190425194638.GA7238@linux.ibm.com> <20190426105413.rajcon4vyzov446c@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190426105413.rajcon4vyzov446c@linutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19042613-0040-0000-0000-000004E79841 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00010999; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000285; SDB=6.01194664; UDB=6.00626372; IPR=6.00975500; MB=3.00026608; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-04-26 13:51:02 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19042613-0041-0000-0000-000008F398DD Message-Id: <20190426135058.GD3923@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-04-26_08:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1904260096 Sender: rcu-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:54:14PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2019-04-25 12:46:38 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > And it doesn't like my (admittedly ancient) QEMU, complaining about not > > > knowing about "x2apic=on,tsc-deadline=on,hypervisor=on,tsc_adjust=on". > > > If I remove these, it works. I will be upgrading soon (famous last > > > words), so what I am going to do is queue the following separate > > > not-for-upstream patch that makes it work on my setup. > > > > Also, the !SMP scenarios get this: > > > > :CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=y: improperly set > > I ignored that (because there is a CHECK option to ensure that certain > options are set). True enough, but these things are a bit like compiler warnings in that it is good to have a clean run. > > Would it make sense to only set this on CONFIG_SMP=y runs? The easy > > way to do this is to move it from CFcommon to the scenario files not > > having CONFIG_SMP=n. (Which is how I am currently running, I should have added.) > > having CONFIG_SMP=n. Or would something else work better? > > > > Or am I doing something wrong? > > You should also get that warning on ARM for instance since those > PARAVIRT SPINLOCKS are only implemented on x86. OK, so we would want this to only be added for x86 runs. > I have no numbers to compare the performance with and without that > option. So we could drop that option or you tell me where to look after > a run with/without that option so I can tell if it is worth the effort. One place to look is in the summary output: TREE01 ------- 17540 GPs (58.4667/s) [rcu: g130629 f0x0 ] The "58.4667/s" is the number of grace periods per second. I would be surprised if CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS made a noticeable difference in grace-period rate (given the natural variation), but you never know. Thanx, Paul