From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:31:47 +0530
Message-ID: <4FFD874B.4090606@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20120709062012.24030.37154.sendpatchset@codeblue> <1341870457.2909.27.camel@oc2024037011.ibm.com> <4FFD4091.8040804@redhat.com> <4FFD86CE.9040501@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <4FFD86CE.9040501@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Archive: <https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/>
List-Post: <mailto:kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, S390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>, Carsten Otte <cotte@de.ibm.com>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 <x86@kernel.org>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, linux390@de.ibm.com, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com>, Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com>
List-ID: <linux-s390.vger.kernel.org>

On 07/11/2012 07:29 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 07/11/2012 02:30 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 07/10/2012 12:47 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
>>>
>>> For the cpu threads in the host that are actually active (in this case
>>> 1/2 of them), ~50% of their time is in kernel and ~43% in guest. This
>>> is for a no-IO workload, so that's just incredible to see so much cpu
>>> wasted. I feel that 2 important areas to tackle are a more scalable
>>> yield_to() and reducing the number of pause exits itself (hopefully by
>>> just tuning ple_window for the latter).
>>
>> One thing we can do is autotune ple_window. If a ple exit fails to wake
>> anybody (because all vcpus are either running, sleeping, or in ple
>> exits) then we deduce we are not overcommitted and we can increase the
>> ple window. There's the question of how to decrease it again though.
>>
>
> I see some problem here, If I interpret situation correctly. What
> happens if we have two guests with one VM having no over-commit and
> other with high over-commit. (except when we have gang scheduling).
>
Sorry, I meant less load and high load inside the guest.

> Rather we should have something tied to VM rather than rigid PLE
> window.