From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native kernels
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 22:08:25 +0930 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200906032208.28061.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090530102330.GC16913@elte.hu>
On Sat, 30 May 2009 07:53:30 pm Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Not so with CONFIG_PARAVIRT. That feature is almost fully parasitic
> to native environments: currently it brings no advantage on native
> hardware _at all_ (and 95% of the users dont care about Xen).
And VMI, and of course lguest. And a little bit of KVM, though not the paths
you're talking about.
Your complaints are a little unfocussed: anything Xen could do to make this
overhead go away, we would be able to do ourselves. Yet it's not clear where
this 1% is going. We're more aggressive with our patching right now than any
other subsystem; which call is the problem?
But your entire rant is willfully ignorant; if you've only just discovered
that all commonly enabled config options have a cost when unused, I am shocked.
I took my standard config, and turned on AUDIT, CGROUP, all the sched options,
all the namespace options, profiling, markers, kprobes, relocatable kernel,
1000Hz, preempt, support for every x86 variant (ie. PAE, NUMA, HIGHMEM64,
DISCONTIGMEM). I turned off kernel debugging and paravirt. Booted with
maxcpus=1.
I created another with SMP=n, and all that turned off. No highmem. 100Hz.
Then I ran virtbench which I had lying around, in local mode (ie. between
processes running locally, rather than between guest OSes)
Distro-style maximal config:
Time for one context switch via pipe: 2285 (2276 - 2290)
Time for one Copy-on-Write fault: 3415 (3264 - 4266)
Time to exec client once: 234656 (232906 - 253343)
Time for one fork/exit/wait: 82656 (82031 - 83218)
Time for gettimeofday(): 253 (253 - 254)
Time to send 4 MB from host: 6911750 (6901000 - 6925500)
Time for one int-0x80 syscall: 284 (284 - 369)
Time for one syscall via libc: 139 (139 - 140)
Time to walk linear 64 MB: 760375 (754750 - 868125)
Time to walk random 64 MB: 955500 (947250 - 990000)
Time for two PTE updates: 3173 (3143 - 3196)
Time to read from disk (256 kB): 2395000 (2319000 - 2434500)
Time for one disk read: 114156 (112906 - 114562)
Time to send 4 MB between guests: 7639000 (7568250 - 7739750)
Time for inter-guest pingpong: 13900 (13800 - 13931)
Time to sendfile 4 MB between guests: 7187000 (7129000 - 46349000)
Time to receive 1000 1k UDPs between guests: 6576000 (6500000 - 7232000)
Custom-style minimal config:
Time for one context switch via pipe: 1351 (1333 - 1405)
Time for one Copy-on-Write fault: 2754 (2610 - 3586)
Time to exec client once: 190625 (189812 - 207500)
Time for one fork/exit/wait: 60968 (60875 - 61218)
Time for gettimeofday(): 248 (248 - 249)
Time to send 4 MB from host: 6643250 (6583750 - 6880750)
Time for one int-0x80 syscall: 280 (280 - 334)
Time for one syscall via libc: 133 (133 - 144)
Time to walk linear 64 MB: 758750 (752375 - 835000)
Time to walk random 64 MB: 943500 (934500 - 1084000)
Time for two PTE updates: 1917 (1900 - 2401)
Time to read from disk (256 kB): 2390500 (2309000 - 2536000)
Time for one disk read: 113250 (112937 - 113875)
Time to send 4 MB between guests: 7830500 (7740500 - 7946000)
Time for inter-guest pingpong: 12566 (11621 - 13652)
Time to sendfile 4 MB between guests: 6533000 (5961000 - 76365000)
Time to receive 1000 1k UDPs between guests: 5278000 (5194000 - 5431000)
Average slowdown: 15%
Worst: context switch, 69% slowdown.
Best: 4MB inter-process. 2% speedup (maybe due to more mem, 4G machine)
So in fact CONFIG_PARAVIRT's 1% makes it a paragon.
We should be praising Jeremy for his efforts and asking him to look at some of
these others!
Sorry for the facts,
Rusty.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-03 12:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 100+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-14 0:16 Performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native identified Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-14 0:16 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-14 1:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-14 1:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-14 8:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-14 8:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-14 14:05 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-14 14:05 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-14 17:36 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-14 17:36 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-14 17:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-14 17:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-14 8:05 ` [Xen-devel] Performance overhead of paravirt_ops on nativeidentified Jan Beulich
2009-05-14 8:05 ` Jan Beulich
2009-05-14 8:33 ` [Xen-devel] " Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-14 17:45 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-14 17:45 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-15 8:10 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich
2009-05-15 18:50 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-18 7:19 ` Jan Beulich
2009-05-18 7:19 ` Jan Beulich
2009-05-20 22:42 ` [Xen-devel] " Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-20 22:42 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-15 18:18 ` [tip:x86/urgent] x86: Fix performance regression caused by paravirt_ops on native kernels tip-bot for Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-15 18:18 ` tip-bot for Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-21 22:42 ` Performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native identified Chuck Ebbert
2009-05-21 22:48 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-21 22:48 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-21 23:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-21 23:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-22 1:26 ` Xin, Xiaohui
2009-05-22 1:26 ` Xin, Xiaohui
2009-05-22 3:39 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-22 3:39 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-22 4:27 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-22 4:27 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-22 5:59 ` Xin, Xiaohui
2009-05-22 5:59 ` Xin, Xiaohui
2009-05-22 16:33 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-22 16:33 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-22 22:44 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-22 22:44 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-22 22:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-22 22:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-25 9:15 ` [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native kernels Ingo Molnar
2009-05-26 18:42 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-28 6:17 ` Nick Piggin
2009-05-28 20:57 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-30 10:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-02 14:18 ` Chris Mason
2009-06-02 14:49 ` Ulrich Drepper
2009-06-02 15:03 ` Chris Mason
2009-06-02 15:22 ` Ulrich Drepper
2009-06-02 16:20 ` Chris Mason
2009-06-02 18:13 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-06-02 18:06 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-06-02 18:27 ` Chris Mason
2009-06-03 6:33 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-02 19:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-06-02 19:51 ` Chris Mason
2009-06-03 12:38 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2009-06-03 16:09 ` Linus Torvalds
[not found] ` <200906041554.37102.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2009-06-04 15:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-04 21:52 ` Dave McCracken
2009-06-05 7:31 ` Gerd Hoffmann
2009-06-05 14:31 ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-06 18:54 ` Anders K. Pedersen
2009-06-05 4:46 ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-05 14:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-07 0:53 ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-08 14:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 9:39 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 11:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 12:10 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 12:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 12:42 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 12:56 ` Avi Kivity
2009-06-09 15:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 23:33 ` Paul Mackerras
2009-06-10 1:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 15:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 15:09 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-06-09 18:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 18:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 22:48 ` Matthew Garrett
2009-06-09 22:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-06-09 14:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 14:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 15:55 ` Avi Kivity
2009-06-09 15:38 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 16:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 16:21 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 16:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 16:45 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 17:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-10 5:53 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-17 9:40 ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-17 9:56 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-10 6:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-06-04 6:58 Rusty Russell
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=200906032208.28061.rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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.