All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com>
To: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@eu.citrix.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: Poor HVM performance with 8 vcpus
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:49:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ACC47F8.5000505@ts.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C6F20151.16961%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>

Hi Keir,

thanks for the quick answer.

Keir Fraser wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
> 
> Tim Deegan is the man for this stuff (cc'ed) - you don't want to get too
> involved in the shadow code without syncing with him first. My

:-)

> understanding, however, is that shadow code is currently designed with
> scalability up to only about 4 VCPUs in mind. The expectation is that, as
> users want to scale wider than that, they will typically be upgrading to
> modern many-core processors with hardware assistance (Intel EPT, AMD NPT).

Okay. We plan to do this as soon as Nehalem-EX is available. Right now we are
testing on 4 socket Dunnington systems (24 cores) and found the issue.
This will be a problem for us if Nehalem-EX is available much later then
planned now. So I wanted to check for possible enhancements in XEN before
this might happen.

> 
> If you don't fit into that scenario, perhaps we can find you some
> lowish-hanging fruit to improve parallelism. Big changes in shadow code
> could be scary for us due to the likely nasty bug tail!

I understand this. Let's see if some rather local changes could improve the
performance.


Juergen

> On 07/10/2009 07:55, "Juergen Gross" <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> we've got massive performance problems running a 8 vcpu HVM-guest (BS2000)
>> under XEN (xen 3.3.1).
>>
>> With a specific benchmark producing a rather high load on memory management
>> operations (lots of process creation/deletion and memory allocation) the 8
>> vcpu performance was worse than the 4 vcpu performance. On other platforms
>> (/390, MIPS, SPARC) this benchmark scaled rather well with the number of cpus.
>>
>> The result of the usage of the software performance counters of XEN seemed
>> to point to the shadow lock being the reason. I modified the Hypervisor to
>> gather some lock statistics (patch will be sent soon) and found that the
>> shadow lock is really the bottleneck. On average 4 vcpus are waiting to get
>> the lock!
>>
>> Is this a known issue?
>> Is there a chance to split the shadow lock into sub-locks or to use a
>> reader/writer lock instead?
>> I just wanted to ask before trying to understand all of the shadow code :-)
>>
>>
>> Juergen
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Juergen Gross                 Principal Developer Operating Systems
TSP ES&S SWE OS6                       Telephone: +49 (0) 89 636 47950
Fujitsu Technolgy Solutions               e-mail: juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6                        Internet: ts.fujitsu.com
D-81739 Muenchen                 Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html

  reply	other threads:[~2009-10-07  7:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-10-07  6:55 Poor HVM performance with 8 vcpus Juergen Gross
2009-10-07  7:26 ` Keir Fraser
2009-10-07  7:49   ` Juergen Gross [this message]
2009-10-07  7:56 ` Ian Pratt
2009-10-07  8:08   ` James Harper
2009-10-07  8:13     ` Ian Pratt
2009-10-07  8:31       ` Juergen Gross
2009-10-07  8:17     ` Keir Fraser
2009-10-07  9:12     ` Tim Deegan
2009-10-07  9:40       ` Juergen Gross
2009-10-07 10:11         ` George Dunlap
2009-10-07 11:45           ` Juergen Gross
2009-10-07 13:44             ` George Dunlap
     [not found]             ` <de76405a0910070627s7585c587l8753e40d1d2b77b9@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]               ` <4ACC9C40.3030503@ts.fujitsu.com>
2009-10-07 14:24                 ` George Dunlap
2009-10-08  5:00                   ` Juergen Gross
2009-10-07 10:14         ` Tim Deegan
2009-10-07 12:32           ` Juergen Gross
2009-10-07 16:37 ` Gianluca Guida
2009-10-08  7:10   ` Juergen Gross
2009-10-14  8:16     ` Juergen Gross
2009-10-14  8:35       ` Keir Fraser
2009-10-14  9:11         ` Juergen Gross
2009-10-14 10:16         ` Gianluca Guida
2009-10-14 10:44           ` Juergen Gross
2009-10-14 10:49             ` Keir Fraser
2009-10-14  8:41       ` Tim Deegan
2009-10-14  9:17         ` Juergen Gross
2009-10-14 11:35       ` Gianluca Guida
2009-10-14 11:43         ` Juergen Gross

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=4ACC47F8.5000505@ts.fujitsu.com \
    --to=juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=Tim.Deegan@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
    /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.