All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Zhigang Wang <zhigang.x.wang@oracle.com>
To: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Subject: Re: VM memory allocation speed with cs 26056
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:42:41 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50A68921.4010202@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50A26B50.5090109@oracle.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1880 bytes --]

On 11/13/2012 10:46 AM, Zhigang Wang wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 01:25 PM, Keir Fraser wrote:
>> On 12/11/2012 15:01, "Zhigang Wang" <zhigang.x.wang@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Keir/Jan,
>>>
>>> Recently I got a chance to access a big machine (2T mem/160 cpus) and I tested
>>> your patch: http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/177fdda0be56
>>>
>>> Attached is the result.
>> The PVM result is weird, there is a small-ish slowdown for small domains,
>> becoming a very large %age slowdown as domain memory increases, and then
>> turning into a *speedup* as the memory size gets very large indeed.
>>
>> What are the error bars like on these measurements I wonder? One thing we
>> could do to allow PV guests doing 4k-at-a-time allocations through
>> alloc_heap_pages() to benefit from the TLB-flush improvements, is pull the
>> filtering-and-flush out into populate_physmap() and increase_reservation().
>> This is listed as a todo in the original patch (26056).
>>
>> To be honest I don't know why the original patch would make PV domain
>> creation slower, and certainly not by a varying %age depending on domain
>> memory size!
>>
>>  -- Keir
> I did it second time. It seems the result (attached) is promising.
>
> I think the strange result is due to the order of testing:
> start_physical_machine -> test_hvm -> test_pvm.
>
> This time, I did: start_physical_machine -> test_pvm -> test_hvm.
>
> You can see the pvm memory allocation speed is not affected by your patch this time.
>
> So I believe this patch is excellent now.

I get another chance to run the test without (old) and with (new) cs 25056 with
order:

start_physical_machine -> test_hvm -> test_pvm

It seems PV guest memory allocation is not affected by this patch, although it
makes a big difference if testing with order:

start_physical_machine -> test_pvm -> test_hvm

Thanks for the patch.

Zhigang


[-- Attachment #2: result.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/pdf, Size: 15769 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

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

      parent reply	other threads:[~2012-11-16 18:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-11-12 15:01 VM memory allocation speed with cs 26056 Zhigang Wang
2012-11-12 15:17 ` Jan Beulich
2012-11-12 15:57   ` Zhigang Wang
2012-11-12 16:25   ` Dan Magenheimer
2012-11-12 18:25 ` Keir Fraser
2012-11-13 15:46   ` Zhigang Wang
2012-11-13 16:13     ` Dan Magenheimer
2012-11-13 17:17       ` Keir Fraser
2012-11-16 18:42     ` Zhigang Wang [this message]

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=50A68921.4010202@oracle.com \
    --to=zhigang.x.wang@oracle.com \
    --cc=dan.magenheimer@oracle.com \
    --cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=keir.xen@gmail.com \
    --cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.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.