All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, KVMARM <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
	Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>,
	Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] ARM64: Guest performance improvement during dirty
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 14:12:33 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAdAUtiZ4GXkDfjeknCmN5TZAiw5roH2h8pdeUGLMva50CL6rg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <877db6trlc.wl-maz@kernel.org>

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 3:55 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 21:04:38 +0000,
> Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patch is to reduce the performance degradation of guest workload during
> > dirty logging on ARM64. A fast path is added to handle permission relaxation
> > during dirty logging. The MMU lock is replaced with rwlock, by which all
> > permision relaxations on leaf pte can be performed under the read lock. This
> > greatly reduces the MMU lock contention during dirty logging. With this
> > solution, the source guest workload performance degradation can be improved
> > by more than 60%.
> >
> > Problem:
> >   * A Google internal live migration test shows that the source guest workload
> >   performance has >99% degradation for about 105 seconds, >50% degradation
> >   for about 112 seconds, >10% degradation for about 112 seconds on ARM64.
> >   This shows that most of the time, the guest workload degradtion is above
> >   99%, which obviously needs some improvement compared to the test result
> >   on x86 (>99% for 6s, >50% for 9s, >10% for 27s).
> >   * Tested H/W: Ampere Altra 3GHz, #CPU: 64, #Mem: 256GB
> >   * VM spec: #vCPU: 48, #Mem/vCPU: 4GB
>
> What are the host and guest page sizes?
Both are 4K and guest mem is 2M hugepage backed. Will add the info for
future posts.
>
> >
> > Analysis:
> >   * We enabled CONFIG_LOCK_STAT in kernel and used dirty_log_perf_test to get
> >     the number of contentions of MMU lock and the "dirty memory time" on
> >     various VM spec.
> >     By using test command
> >     ./dirty_log_perf_test -b 2G -m 2 -i 2 -s anonymous_hugetlb_2mb -v [#vCPU]
>
> How is this test representative of the internal live migration test
> you mention above? '-m 2' indicates a mode that varies depending on
> the HW and revision of the test (I just added a bunch of supported
> modes). Which one is it?
The "dirty memory time" is the time vCPU threads spent in KVM after
fault. Higher "dirty memory time" means higher degradation to guest
workload.
'-m 2' indicates mode "PA-bits:48,  VA-bits:48,  4K pages". Will add
this for future posts.
>
> >     Below are the results:
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >     | #vCPU | dirty memory time (ms) | number of contentions |
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >     | 1     | 926                    | 0                     |
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >     | 2     | 1189                   | 4732558               |
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >     | 4     | 2503                   | 11527185              |
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >     | 8     | 5069                   | 24881677              |
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >     | 16    | 10340                  | 50347956              |
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >     | 32    | 20351                  | 100605720             |
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >     | 64    | 40994                  | 201442478             |
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >
> >   * From the test results above, the "dirty memory time" and the number of
> >     MMU lock contention scale with the number of vCPUs. That means all the
> >     dirty memory operations from all vCPU threads have been serialized by
> >     the MMU lock. Further analysis also shows that the permission relaxation
> >     during dirty logging is where vCPU threads get serialized.
> >
> > Solution:
> >   * On ARM64, there is no mechanism as PML (Page Modification Logging) and
> >     the dirty-bit solution for dirty logging is much complicated compared to
> >     the write-protection solution. The straight way to reduce the guest
> >     performance degradation is to enhance the concurrency for the permission
> >     fault path during dirty logging.
> >   * In this patch, we only put leaf PTE permission relaxation for dirty
> >     logging under read lock, all others would go under write lock.
> >     Below are the results based on the solution:
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     | #vCPU | dirty memory time (ms) |
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     | 1     | 803                    |
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     | 2     | 843                    |
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     | 4     | 942                    |
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     | 8     | 1458                   |
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     | 16    | 2853                   |
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     | 32    | 5886                   |
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     | 64    | 12190                  |
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     All "dirty memory time" have been reduced by more than 60% when the
> >     number of vCPU grows.
>
> How does that translate to the original problem statement with your
> live migration test?
Based on the solution, the test results from the Google internal live
migration test also shows more than 60% improvement with >99% for 30s,
>50% for 58s and >10% for 76s.
Will add this info in to future posts.
>
> Thanks,
>
>         M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

Thanks,
Jing

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	KVMARM <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] ARM64: Guest performance improvement during dirty
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 14:12:33 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAdAUtiZ4GXkDfjeknCmN5TZAiw5roH2h8pdeUGLMva50CL6rg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <877db6trlc.wl-maz@kernel.org>

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 3:55 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 21:04:38 +0000,
> Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patch is to reduce the performance degradation of guest workload during
> > dirty logging on ARM64. A fast path is added to handle permission relaxation
> > during dirty logging. The MMU lock is replaced with rwlock, by which all
> > permision relaxations on leaf pte can be performed under the read lock. This
> > greatly reduces the MMU lock contention during dirty logging. With this
> > solution, the source guest workload performance degradation can be improved
> > by more than 60%.
> >
> > Problem:
> >   * A Google internal live migration test shows that the source guest workload
> >   performance has >99% degradation for about 105 seconds, >50% degradation
> >   for about 112 seconds, >10% degradation for about 112 seconds on ARM64.
> >   This shows that most of the time, the guest workload degradtion is above
> >   99%, which obviously needs some improvement compared to the test result
> >   on x86 (>99% for 6s, >50% for 9s, >10% for 27s).
> >   * Tested H/W: Ampere Altra 3GHz, #CPU: 64, #Mem: 256GB
> >   * VM spec: #vCPU: 48, #Mem/vCPU: 4GB
>
> What are the host and guest page sizes?
Both are 4K and guest mem is 2M hugepage backed. Will add the info for
future posts.
>
> >
> > Analysis:
> >   * We enabled CONFIG_LOCK_STAT in kernel and used dirty_log_perf_test to get
> >     the number of contentions of MMU lock and the "dirty memory time" on
> >     various VM spec.
> >     By using test command
> >     ./dirty_log_perf_test -b 2G -m 2 -i 2 -s anonymous_hugetlb_2mb -v [#vCPU]
>
> How is this test representative of the internal live migration test
> you mention above? '-m 2' indicates a mode that varies depending on
> the HW and revision of the test (I just added a bunch of supported
> modes). Which one is it?
The "dirty memory time" is the time vCPU threads spent in KVM after
fault. Higher "dirty memory time" means higher degradation to guest
workload.
'-m 2' indicates mode "PA-bits:48,  VA-bits:48,  4K pages". Will add
this for future posts.
>
> >     Below are the results:
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >     | #vCPU | dirty memory time (ms) | number of contentions |
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >     | 1     | 926                    | 0                     |
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >     | 2     | 1189                   | 4732558               |
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >     | 4     | 2503                   | 11527185              |
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >     | 8     | 5069                   | 24881677              |
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >     | 16    | 10340                  | 50347956              |
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >     | 32    | 20351                  | 100605720             |
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >     | 64    | 40994                  | 201442478             |
> >     +-------+------------------------+-----------------------+
> >
> >   * From the test results above, the "dirty memory time" and the number of
> >     MMU lock contention scale with the number of vCPUs. That means all the
> >     dirty memory operations from all vCPU threads have been serialized by
> >     the MMU lock. Further analysis also shows that the permission relaxation
> >     during dirty logging is where vCPU threads get serialized.
> >
> > Solution:
> >   * On ARM64, there is no mechanism as PML (Page Modification Logging) and
> >     the dirty-bit solution for dirty logging is much complicated compared to
> >     the write-protection solution. The straight way to reduce the guest
> >     performance degradation is to enhance the concurrency for the permission
> >     fault path during dirty logging.
> >   * In this patch, we only put leaf PTE permission relaxation for dirty
> >     logging under read lock, all others would go under write lock.
> >     Below are the results based on the solution:
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     | #vCPU | dirty memory time (ms) |
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     | 1     | 803                    |
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     | 2     | 843                    |
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     | 4     | 942                    |
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     | 8     | 1458                   |
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     | 16    | 2853                   |
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     | 32    | 5886                   |
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     | 64    | 12190                  |
> >     +-------+------------------------+
> >     All "dirty memory time" have been reduced by more than 60% when the
> >     number of vCPU grows.
>
> How does that translate to the original problem statement with your
> live migration test?
Based on the solution, the test results from the Google internal live
migration test also shows more than 60% improvement with >99% for 30s,
>50% for 58s and >10% for 76s.
Will add this info in to future posts.
>
> Thanks,
>
>         M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

Thanks,
Jing
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-11 22:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-10 21:04 [RFC PATCH 0/3] ARM64: Guest performance improvement during dirty Jing Zhang
2022-01-10 21:04 ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-10 21:04 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] KVM: arm64: Use read/write spin lock for MMU protection Jing Zhang
2022-01-10 21:04   ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-11 10:23   ` Marc Zyngier
2022-01-11 10:23     ` Marc Zyngier
2022-01-11 22:12     ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-11 22:12       ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-10 21:04 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] KVM: arm64: Add fast path to handle permission relaxation during dirty logging Jing Zhang
2022-01-10 21:04   ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-11 10:22   ` Marc Zyngier
2022-01-11 10:22     ` Marc Zyngier
2022-01-11 10:50   ` Marc Zyngier
2022-01-11 10:50     ` Marc Zyngier
2022-01-11 22:12     ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-11 22:12       ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-10 21:04 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] KVM: selftests: Add vgic initialization for dirty log perf test for ARM Jing Zhang
2022-01-10 21:04   ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-11  9:55   ` Andrew Jones
2022-01-11  9:55     ` Andrew Jones
2022-01-11 22:12     ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-11 22:12       ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-11 10:30   ` Marc Zyngier
2022-01-11 10:30     ` Marc Zyngier
2022-01-11 22:16     ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-11 22:16       ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-12 11:37       ` Marc Zyngier
2022-01-12 11:37         ` Marc Zyngier
2022-01-12 17:40         ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-12 17:40           ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-11 11:54 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] ARM64: Guest performance improvement during dirty Marc Zyngier
2022-01-11 11:54   ` Marc Zyngier
2022-01-11 22:12   ` Jing Zhang [this message]
2022-01-11 22:12     ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-13  2:49 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-01-13  2:49   ` Ricardo Koller
2022-01-13  3:50   ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-13  3:50     ` Jing Zhang
2022-01-13  6:12     ` Ricardo Koller
2022-01-13  6:12       ` Ricardo Koller

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAAdAUtiZ4GXkDfjeknCmN5TZAiw5roH2h8pdeUGLMva50CL6rg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=jingzhangos@google.com \
    --cc=dmatlack@google.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=oupton@google.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=reijiw@google.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.