From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>
Subject: Re: Performance of  40-way guest running  2.6.32-220 (RHEL6.2)  vs.  3.3.1 OS
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:04:47 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <loom.20120416T040402-361@post.gmane.org>
References: <loom.20120411T183827-108@post.gmane.org> <4F871D12.3060006@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: kvm@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:50388 "EHLO plane.gmane.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750982Ab2DPDFF (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:05:05 -0400
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gcekd-kvm-devel@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1SJcFT-0008Pw-Tj
	for kvm@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:05:04 +0200
Received: from zccy01cs104.houston.hp.com ([15.211.201.84])
        by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
        id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:05:03 +0200
Received: from chegu_vinod by zccy01cs104.houston.hp.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
        id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:05:03 +0200
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Rik van Riel <riel <at> redhat.com> writes:

> 
> On 04/11/2012 01:21 PM, Chegu Vinod wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > While running an AIM7 (workfile.high_systime) in a single 40-way (or a 
single
> > 60-way KVM guest) I noticed pretty bad performance when the guest was booted
> > with 3.3.1 kernel when compared to the same guest booted with 2.6.32-220
> > (RHEL6.2) kernel.
> 
> > For the 40-way Guest-RunA (2.6.32-220 kernel) performed nearly 9x better 
than
> > the Guest-RunB (3.3.1 kernel). In the case of 60-way guest run the older 
guest
> > kernel was nearly 12x better !
> 
> > Turned on function tracing and found that there appears to be more time 
being
> > spent around the lock code in the 3.3.1 guest when compared to the 2.6.32-
220
> > guest.
> 
> Looks like you may be running into the ticket spinlock
> code. During the early RHEL 6 days, Gleb came up with a
> patch to automatically disable ticket spinlocks when
> running inside a KVM guest.
> 

Thanks for the pointer. 
Perhaps that is the issue.  
I did look up that old discussion thread.


> IIRC that patch got rejected upstream at the time,
> with upstream developers preferring to wait for a
> "better solution".
> 
> If such a better solution is not on its way upstream
> now (two years later), maybe we should just merge
> Gleb's patch upstream for the time being?



Also noticed a recent discussion thread (that originated from the Xen context)

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.virtualization/15078

Not yet sure if this recent discussion is also in some way related to
the older one initiated by Gleb.

Thanks
Vinod