All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
To: Michael Schinzel <schinzel@ip-projects.de>,
	Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Cc: Roger Pau Monne <roger.paumonne@citrix.com>,
	Thomas Toka <toka@ip-projects.de>
Subject: Re: Read Performance issue when Xen Hypervisor is activated
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:03:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1484240629.9947.18.camel@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a8ce81db36d142b5a1957468e6b8a547@ip-projects.de>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5058 bytes --]

On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 07:15 +0000, Michael Schinzel wrote:
> Good Morning,
>
I'm back, although, as anticipate, I can't be terribly useful, I'm
afraid...

> You can see, in default Xen configuration, the most important thing
> at read performance test -> 2414.92 MB/sec <- the used cache is half
> of the cache like the same host is bootet without hypervisor. We now
> searched and searched and searched and find the Case:
> xen_acpi_processor
> 
> Xen is manageing the CPU Performance default with 1.200 Mhz. It is
> like you are driving a Ferrari all the time with 30 miles/h :) So we
> changed the Performance parameter to
> 
>  xenpm set-scaling-governor all performance
> 
Well, yes, this will have an impact, but it's unlikely what you're
looking for. In fact, something similar would apply also to baremetal
Linux.

> After a little bit searching around, i also find a parameter for the
> scheduler.
> 
> root@v7:~# cat /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
> noop deadline [cfq]
> 
> I changed the scheduler to deadline.  After this Change
> 
Well, ISTR [nop] could be even better. But I don't think this will make
much difference either, in this case.

> We have already tried to remove the CPU reservation, memory limit and
> so on but this don't change anythink. Also upgrading the Hypervisor
> dont change anythink at this performance issue. 
>  
Well, these are all sequential benchmarks, so it indeed could have been
expected that adding more vCPUs wouldn't have changed things much.

I decided to re-run some of your tests on my test hardware (which is
way lower end than yours, especially as far as storage is concerned).

These are m results:

 hdparm -Tt /dev/sda                   Without Xen (baremetal Linux)                    With Xen (from within dom0)
 Timing cached reads         14074 MB in  2.00 seconds = 7043.05 MB/sec     14694 MB in  1.99 seconds = 7382.22 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads    364 MB in  3.01 seconds =  120.78 MB/sec       364 MB in  3.00 seconds =  121.22 MB/sec


 dd_obs_test.sh datei                  transfer rate
 block size   Without Xen (baremetal Linux)   With Xen (from within dom0)
        512            279 MB/s                      123 MB/s
       1024            454 MB/s                      217 MB/s
       2048            275 MB/s                      359 MB/s
       4096            888 MB/s                      532 MB/s
       8192            987 MB/s                      659 MB/s
      16384            1.0 GB/s                      685 MB/s
      32768            1.1 GB/s                      773 MB/s
      65536            1.1 GB/s                      846 MB/s
     131072            1.1 GB/s                      749 MB/s
     262144            327 MB/s                      844 MB/s
     524288            1.1 GB/s                      783 MB/s
    1048576            420 MB/s                      823 MB/s
    2097152            485 MB/s                      305 MB/s
    4194304            409 MB/s                      783 MB/s
    8388608            380 MB/s                      776 MB/s
   16777216            950 MB/s                      703 MB/s
   33554432            916 MB/s                      297 MB/s
   67108864            856 MB/s                      492 MB/s


time dd if=/dev/zero of=datei bs=1M count=10240
  Without Xen (baremetal Linux)   With Xen (from within dom0)
       73.7224 s, 146 MB/s            97.6948 s, 110 MB/s
            real 1m13.724s                 real 1m37.700s
             user 0m0.000s                 user  0m0.068s
             sys  0m9.364s                 sys  0m15.180s


root@Zhaman:~# time dd if=datei of=/dev/null
  Without Xen (baremetal Linux)   With Xen (from within dom0)
       9.92787 s, 1.1 GB/s            95.1827 s, 113 MB/s
             real 0m9.953s                 real 1m35.194s
             user 0m2.096s                 user 0m10.632s
              sys 0m7.300s                  sys 0m51.820s

Which confirms that, when running the tests inside a Xen Dom0, things
are indeed slower.

Let me say something, though: the purpose of Xen is not to achieve the
best possible performance in Dom0. In fact, it is to achieve the best
possible aggregated performance of a number of guest domains.

The fact that virtualization has an overhead and that Dom0 pays quite a
high price are well known. Have you tried, for instance, running some
of the test in a DomU?

Now, whether what both you and I are seeing is to be considered
"normal", I can't tell. Maybe Roger can (or he can tell us who to
bother for that).

In general, I don't think updating random system and firmware
components is useful at all... This is not a BIOS issue, IMO.

Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 127 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2017-01-12 17:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-12-27 14:26 Read Performance issue when Xen Hypervisor is activated Michael Schinzel
2016-12-30 16:34 ` Dario Faggioli
2016-12-30 16:53   ` Michael Schinzel
2016-12-31  9:07   ` Michael Schinzel
2017-01-02  7:15   ` Michael Schinzel
2017-01-12 17:03     ` Dario Faggioli [this message]
2017-01-13 13:32       ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-12-26 11:48 Michael Schinzel

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=1484240629.9947.18.camel@citrix.com \
    --to=dario.faggioli@citrix.com \
    --cc=roger.paumonne@citrix.com \
    --cc=schinzel@ip-projects.de \
    --cc=toka@ip-projects.de \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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.