From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: KVM: Yield CPU when vcpu executes a WFE
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 20:43:03 +0530
Message-ID: <525420FF.30503@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <1381160430-11790-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <1381160430-11790-2-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <CAC4Lta14xZNnEUXxZiaF4=PQQTjq4efjsNDAK2oBH4-Uqh_d0A@mail.gmail.com> <5253FDDD.6050008@arm.com> <52541EA3.7010403@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <52541F93.4070503@arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Raghavendra KT <raghavendra.kt.linux@gmail.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e28smtp04.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.4]:36098 "EHLO
	e28smtp04.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753013Ab3JHPNN (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:13:13 -0400
Received: from /spool/local
	by e28smtp04.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org> from <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>;
	Tue, 8 Oct 2013 20:43:11 +0530
Received: from d28relay02.in.ibm.com (d28relay02.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.59])
	by d28dlp01.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E34E004A
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue,  8 Oct 2013 20:44:25 +0530 (IST)
Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (d28av05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.67])
	by d28relay02.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r98FFj6f40894596
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 20:45:45 +0530
Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by d28av05.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r98FD6vD010244
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 20:43:07 +0530
In-Reply-To: <52541F93.4070503@arm.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 10/08/2013 08:36 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Just gave it a go, and the results are slightly (but consistently)
>>> worse. Over 10 runs:
>>>
>>> Without RELAX_INTERCEPT: Average run 3.3623s
>>> With RELAX_INTERCEPT: Average run 3.4226s
>>>
>>> Not massive, but still noticeable. Any clue?
>>
>> Is it  a 4x overcommit? Probably we would have hit the code
>> overhead if it were small guests.
>
> Only 2x overcommit (dual core host, quad vcpu guests).

Okay. quad vcpu seem to explain.

>
>> RELAX_INTERCEPT is worth enabling for large guests with
>> overcommits.
>
> I'll try something more aggressive as soon as I get the time. What do
> you call a large guest? So far, the hard limit on ARM is 8 vcpus.
>

Okay. I was referring to guests >= 32 vcpus.
May be 8vcpu guests with 2x/4x is worth trying. If we still do not
see benefit, then it is not worth enabling.