Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support

["David S. Ahern" <daahern@cisco.com>]

Gregory Haskins wrote:
> David S. Ahern wrote:
>> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>   
>>> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:45:52AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>>     
>>>> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>>>       
>>>>> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:55:37AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>>>   
>>>>>         
>>>>>> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>> Also it would be interesting to see the MMIO comparison with EPT/NPT,
>>>>>>> it probably sucks much less than what you're seeing.
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>             
>>>>>> Why would NPT improve mmio?  If anything, it would be worse, since the  
>>>>>> processor has to do the nested walk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, these are newer machines, so the absolute results as well as  
>>>>>> the difference will be smaller.
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>           
>>>>> Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2358 SE 2.4GHz:
>>>>>
>>>>> NPT enabled:
>>>>> test 0: 3088633284634 - 3059375712321 = 29257572313
>>>>> test 1: 3121754636397 - 3088633419760 = 33121216637
>>>>> test 2: 3204666462763 - 3121754668573 = 82911794190
>>>>>
>>>>> NPT disabled:
>>>>> test 0: 3638061646250 - 3609416811687 = 28644834563
>>>>> test 1: 3669413430258 - 3638061771291 = 31351658967
>>>>> test 2: 3736287253287 - 3669413463506 = 66873789781
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>         
>>>> Thanks for running that.  Its interesting to see that NPT was in fact
>>>> worse as Avi predicted.
>>>>
>>>> Would you mind if I graphed the result and added this data to my wiki? 
>>>> If so, could you adjust the tsc result into IOPs using the proper
>>>> time-base and the test_count you ran with?   I can show a graph with the
>>>> data as is and the relative differences will properly surface..but it
>>>> would be nice to have apples to apples in terms of IOPS units with my
>>>> other run.
>>>>
>>>> -Greg
>>>>       
>>> Please, that'll be nice.
>>>
>>> Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2358 SE
>>>
>>> host: 2.6.30-rc2
>>> guest: 2.6.29.1-102.fc11.x86_64
>>>
>>> test_count=1000000, tsc freq=2402882804 Hz
>>>
>>> NPT disabled:
>>>
>>> test 0 = 2771200766
>>> test 1 = 3018726738
>>> test 2 = 6414705418
>>> test 3 = 2890332864
>>>
>>> NPT enabled:
>>>
>>> test 0 = 2908604045
>>> test 1 = 3174687394
>>> test 2 = 7912464804
>>> test 3 = 3046085805
>>>
>>>     
>> DL380 G6, 1-E5540, 6 GB RAM, SMT enabled:
>> host: 2.6.30-rc3
>> guest: fedora 9, 2.6.27.21-78.2.41.fc9.x86_64
>>
>> with EPT
>> test 0: 543617607291 - 518146439877 = 25471167414
>> test 1: 572568176856 - 543617703004 = 28950473852
>> test 2: 630182158139 - 572568269792 = 57613888347
>>
>>
>> without EPT
>> test 0: 1383532195307 - 1358052032086 = 25480163221
>> test 1: 1411587055210 - 1383532318617 = 28054736593
>> test 2: 1471446356172 - 1411587194600 = 59859161572
>>
>>
>>   
> 
> Thank you kindly, David.
> 
> -Greg

I ran another test case with SMT disabled, and while I was at it
converted TSC delta to operations/sec. The results without SMT are
confusing -- to me anyways. I'm hoping someone can explain it.
Basically, using a count of 10,000,000 (per your web page) with SMT
disabled the guest detected a soft lockup on the CPU. So, I dropped the
count down to 1,000,000. So, for 1e6 iterations:

without SMT, with EPT:
    HC:   259,455 ops/sec
    PIO:  226,937 ops/sec
    MMIO: 113,180 ops/sec

without SMT, without EPT:
    HC:   274,825 ops/sec
    PIO:  247,910 ops/sec
    MMIO: 111,535 ops/sec

Converting the prior TSC deltas:

with SMT, with EPT:
    HC:    994,655 ops/sec
    PIO:   875,116 ops/sec
    MMIO:  439,738 ops/sec

with SMT, without EPT:
    HC:    994,304 ops/sec
    PIO:   903,057 ops/sec
    MMIO:  423,244 ops/sec

Running the tests repeatedly I did notice a fair variability (as much as
-10% down from these numbers).

Also, just to make sure I converted the delta to ops/sec, the formula I
used was cpu_freq / dTSC * count = operations/sec


david