All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: OHMURA Kei <ohmura.kei@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	mtosatti@redhat.com, drepper@redhat.com,
	Yoshiaki Tamura <tamura.yoshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
	ohmura.kei@lab.ntt.co.jp
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2] qemu-kvm: Speed up of the dirty-bitmap-traveling
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:57:47 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B7CD6DB.60908@lab.ntt.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <FE3E6123-9040-40E4-8D38-63E1532B9843@suse.de>

>>>>> "We think"? I mean - yes, I think so too. But have you actually measured it?
>>>>> How much improvement are we talking here?
>>>>> Is it still faster when a bswap is involved?
>>>> Thanks for pointing out.
>>>> I will post the data for x86 later.
>>>> However, I don't have a test environment to check the impact of bswap.
>>>> Would you please measure the run time between the following section if possible?
>>> It'd make more sense to have a real stand alone test program, no?
>>> I can try to write one today, but I have some really nasty important bugs to fix first.
>>
>> OK.  I will prepare a test code with sample data.  Since I found a ppc machine around, I will run the code and post the results of
>> x86 and ppc.
>>
>>
>> By the way, the following data is a result of x86 measured in QEMU/KVM.  
>> This data shows, how many times the function is called (#called), runtime of original function(orig.), runtime of this patch(patch), speedup ratio (ratio).
> 
> That does indeed look promising!
> 
> Thanks for doing this micro-benchmark. I just want to be 100% sure that it doesn't affect performance for big endian badly.


I measured runtime of the test code with sample data.  My test environment 
and results are described below.

x86 Test Environment:
CPU: 4x Intel Xeon Quad Core 2.66GHz
Mem size: 6GB

ppc Test Environment:
CPU: 2x Dual Core PPC970MP
Mem size: 2GB

The sample data of dirty bitmap was produced by QEMU/KVM while the guest OS
was live migrating.  To measure the runtime I copied cpu_get_real_ticks() of
QEMU to my test program.


Experimental results:
Test1: Guest OS read 3GB file, which is bigger than memory. 
       orig.(msec)    patch(msec)    ratio
x86    0.3            0.1            6.4 
ppc    7.9            2.7            3.0 

Test2: Guest OS read/write 3GB file, which is bigger than memory. 
       orig.(msec)    patch(msec)    ratio
x86    12.0           3.2            3.7 
ppc    251.1          123            2.0 


I also measured the runtime of bswap itself on ppc, and I found it was only 
just 0.3% ~ 0.7 % of the runtime described above. 


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: OHMURA Kei <ohmura.kei@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Cc: ohmura.kei@lab.ntt.co.jp,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	mtosatti@redhat.com,
	Yoshiaki Tamura <tamura.yoshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
	"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	drepper@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2] qemu-kvm: Speed up of the dirty-bitmap-traveling
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:57:47 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B7CD6DB.60908@lab.ntt.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <FE3E6123-9040-40E4-8D38-63E1532B9843@suse.de>

>>>>> "We think"? I mean - yes, I think so too. But have you actually measured it?
>>>>> How much improvement are we talking here?
>>>>> Is it still faster when a bswap is involved?
>>>> Thanks for pointing out.
>>>> I will post the data for x86 later.
>>>> However, I don't have a test environment to check the impact of bswap.
>>>> Would you please measure the run time between the following section if possible?
>>> It'd make more sense to have a real stand alone test program, no?
>>> I can try to write one today, but I have some really nasty important bugs to fix first.
>>
>> OK.  I will prepare a test code with sample data.  Since I found a ppc machine around, I will run the code and post the results of
>> x86 and ppc.
>>
>>
>> By the way, the following data is a result of x86 measured in QEMU/KVM.  
>> This data shows, how many times the function is called (#called), runtime of original function(orig.), runtime of this patch(patch), speedup ratio (ratio).
> 
> That does indeed look promising!
> 
> Thanks for doing this micro-benchmark. I just want to be 100% sure that it doesn't affect performance for big endian badly.


I measured runtime of the test code with sample data.  My test environment 
and results are described below.

x86 Test Environment:
CPU: 4x Intel Xeon Quad Core 2.66GHz
Mem size: 6GB

ppc Test Environment:
CPU: 2x Dual Core PPC970MP
Mem size: 2GB

The sample data of dirty bitmap was produced by QEMU/KVM while the guest OS
was live migrating.  To measure the runtime I copied cpu_get_real_ticks() of
QEMU to my test program.


Experimental results:
Test1: Guest OS read 3GB file, which is bigger than memory. 
       orig.(msec)    patch(msec)    ratio
x86    0.3            0.1            6.4 
ppc    7.9            2.7            3.0 

Test2: Guest OS read/write 3GB file, which is bigger than memory. 
       orig.(msec)    patch(msec)    ratio
x86    12.0           3.2            3.7 
ppc    251.1          123            2.0 


I also measured the runtime of bswap itself on ppc, and I found it was only 
just 0.3% ~ 0.7 % of the runtime described above. 

  reply	other threads:[~2010-02-18  5:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-02-10 10:52 [PATCH v2] qemu-kvm: Speed up of the dirty-bitmap-traveling OHMURA Kei
2010-02-10 10:52 ` [Qemu-devel] " OHMURA Kei
2010-02-10 13:10 ` Ulrich Drepper
2010-02-10 13:10   ` [Qemu-devel] " Ulrich Drepper
2010-02-10 13:20 ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-10 13:20   ` [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
2010-02-10 15:54   ` Anthony Liguori
2010-02-10 15:54     ` [Qemu-devel] " Anthony Liguori
2010-02-10 15:57     ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-10 15:57       ` [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
2010-02-10 16:00     ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-10 16:00       ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-10 16:35       ` Anthony Liguori
2010-02-10 16:35         ` Anthony Liguori
2010-02-10 16:43         ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-10 16:43           ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-10 16:46           ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-10 16:46             ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-10 16:47             ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-10 16:47               ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-10 16:52               ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-10 16:52                 ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-10 16:54                 ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-10 16:54                   ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-10 16:43         ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-10 16:43           ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-10 15:55   ` Anthony Liguori
2010-02-10 15:55     ` [Qemu-devel] " Anthony Liguori
2010-02-12  2:03     ` OHMURA Kei
2010-02-12  2:03       ` [Qemu-devel] " OHMURA Kei
2010-02-14 12:34       ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-14 12:34         ` [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
2010-02-15  6:12         ` OHMURA Kei
2010-02-15  6:12           ` [Qemu-devel] " OHMURA Kei
2010-02-15  8:24           ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-15  8:24             ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-16 11:16             ` OHMURA Kei
2010-02-16 11:16               ` OHMURA Kei
2010-02-16 11:18               ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-16 11:18                 ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-17  9:42                 ` OHMURA Kei
2010-02-17  9:42                   ` OHMURA Kei
2010-02-17  9:46                   ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-17  9:46                     ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-18  5:57                     ` OHMURA Kei [this message]
2010-02-18  5:57                       ` OHMURA Kei
2010-02-18 10:30                       ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-18 10:30                         ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-17  9:47                   ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-17  9:47                     ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-17  9:49                     ` Alexander Graf
2010-02-17  9:49                       ` Alexander Graf

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=4B7CD6DB.60908@lab.ntt.co.jp \
    --to=ohmura.kei@lab.ntt.co.jp \
    --cc=agraf@suse.de \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=drepper@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=tamura.yoshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp \
    /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.