All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com
Cc: Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@lists.osdl.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: system call time increase when turning on CONFIG_PARAVIRT
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:54:03 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <45E89CFB.4090905@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1172866274.4898.14.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Tim Chen wrote:
> With CONFIG_PARAVIRT turned on, I've found that time invoking
> system_call jumped up quite a lot.  Using TCP streaming test as a
> workload and running on 32-bit 2.6.20 kernel, system_call goes up from
> 0.00025% all the way to 1.6% in the oprofile data.  There is a drop of
> about 4% in overall throughput for this particular workload. 
>
> With lmbench's null system call test, the call time goes up from 0.10
> usec to 0.225 usec.
>
> I'm testing on dual socket Intel core 2 processor running at 2.67 GHz
> with 4 GB RAM.
[ I assume you're talking about running on native hardware. ]

In the current paravirt changes in the kernel, many of the
paravirtualized operations are implemented as (expensive) indirect calls
via paravirt_ops.  Among the changes in the paravirt patches I posted
yesterday is an enhanced patching mechanism which inlines a lot of the
common operations, and converts the rest into direct calls.

I haven't done any detailed measurements on what effect this will have,
but it does bring the actual executed instruction stream much closer to
the !CONFIG_PARAVIRT case, and so I would hope it would recover most or
all of the performance loss you've noticed.

    J

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@lists.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: system call time increase when turning on CONFIG_PARAVIRT
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:54:03 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <45E89CFB.4090905@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1172866274.4898.14.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Tim Chen wrote:
> With CONFIG_PARAVIRT turned on, I've found that time invoking
> system_call jumped up quite a lot.  Using TCP streaming test as a
> workload and running on 32-bit 2.6.20 kernel, system_call goes up from
> 0.00025% all the way to 1.6% in the oprofile data.  There is a drop of
> about 4% in overall throughput for this particular workload. 
>
> With lmbench's null system call test, the call time goes up from 0.10
> usec to 0.225 usec.
>
> I'm testing on dual socket Intel core 2 processor running at 2.67 GHz
> with 4 GB RAM.
[ I assume you're talking about running on native hardware. ]

In the current paravirt changes in the kernel, many of the
paravirtualized operations are implemented as (expensive) indirect calls
via paravirt_ops.  Among the changes in the paravirt patches I posted
yesterday is an enhanced patching mechanism which inlines a lot of the
common operations, and converts the rest into direct calls.

I haven't done any detailed measurements on what effect this will have,
but it does bring the actual executed instruction stream much closer to
the !CONFIG_PARAVIRT case, and so I would hope it would recover most or
all of the performance loss you've noticed.

    J

  reply	other threads:[~2007-03-02 21:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-03-02 20:11 system call time increase when turning on CONFIG_PARAVIRT Tim Chen
2007-03-02 21:54 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2007-03-02 21:54   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-03-02 23:11   ` Tim Chen
2007-03-03  0:16     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-03-03  0:16       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-03-03  7:00       ` Zachary Amsden
2007-03-08  0:02       ` Tim Chen
2007-03-08  0:02         ` Tim Chen
2007-03-08  0:55         ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-03-08  0:55           ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge

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=45E89CFB.4090905@goop.org \
    --to=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=virtualization@lists.osdl.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.