linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, X86 <x86@kernel.org>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Attilio Rao <attilio.rao@citrix.com>,
	Virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	Xen Devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
	Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@amd.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 00:15:30 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FB0014A.90604@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FA7E1C8.7010509@redhat.com>

On 05/07/2012 08:22 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:

I could not come with pv-flush results (also Nikunj had clarified that
the result was on NOn PLE

> I'd like to see those numbers, then.
>
> Ingo, please hold on the kvm-specific patches, meanwhile.
>

3 guests 8GB RAM, 1 used for kernbench
(kernbench -f -H -M -o 20) other for cpuhog (shell script with  while
true do hackbench)

1x: no hogs
2x: 8hogs in one guest
3x: 8hogs each in two guest

kernbench on PLE:
Machine : IBM xSeries with Intel(R) Xeon(R)  X7560 2.27GHz CPU with 32 
core, with 8 online cpus and 4*64GB RAM.

The average is taken over 4 iterations with 3 run each (4*3=12). and 
stdev is calculated over mean reported in each run.


A): 8 vcpu guest

                  BASE                    BASE+patch 
%improvement w.r.t
                  mean (sd)               mean (sd)              patched 
kernel time
case 1*1x:	61.7075  (1.17872)	60.93     (1.475625)    1.27605
case 1*2x:	107.2125 (1.3821349)	97.506675 (1.3461878)   9.95401
case 1*3x:	144.3515 (1.8203927)	138.9525  (0.58309319)  3.8855


B): 16 vcpu guest
                  BASE                    BASE+patch 
%improvement w.r.t
                  mean (sd)               mean (sd)              patched 
kernel time
case 2*1x:	70.524   (1.5941395)	69.68866  (1.9392529)   1.19867
case 2*2x:	133.0738 (1.4558653)	124.8568  (1.4544986)   6.58114
case 2*3x:	206.0094 (1.3437359)	181.4712  (2.9134116)   13.5218

B): 32 vcpu guest
                  BASE                    BASE+patch 
%improvementw.r.t
                  mean (sd)               mean (sd)              patched 
kernel time
case 4*1x:	100.61046 (2.7603485)	 85.48734  (2.6035035)  17.6905

It seems while we do not see any improvement in low contention case,
the benefit becomes evident with overcommit and large guests. I am
continuing analysis with other benchmarks (now with pgbench to check if
it has acceptable improvement/degradation in low contenstion case).

Avi,
Can patch series go ahead for inclusion into tree with following
reasons:

The patch series brings fairness with ticketlock ( hence the
predictability, since during contention, vcpu trying
  to acqire lock is sure that it gets its turn in less than total number 
of vcpus conntending for lock), which is very much desired irrespective
of its low benefit/degradation (if any) in low contention scenarios.

Ofcourse ticketlocks had undesirable effect of exploding LHP problem,
and the series addresses with improvement in scheduling and sleeping 
instead of burning cpu time.

Finally a less famous one, it brings almost PLE equivalent capabilty to
all the non PLE hardware (TBH I always preferred my experiment kernel to 
be compiled in my pv guest that saves more than 30 min of time for each 
run).

It would be nice to see any results if somebody got benefited/suffered 
with patchset.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-05-13 18:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-05-02 10:06 [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:06 ` [PATCH RFC V8 1/17] x86/spinlock: Replace pv spinlocks with pv ticketlocks Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:06 ` [PATCH RFC V8 2/17] x86/ticketlock: Don't inline _spin_unlock when using paravirt spinlocks Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:06 ` [PATCH RFC V8 3/17] x86/ticketlock: Collapse a layer of functions Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:07 ` [PATCH RFC V8 4/17] xen: Defer spinlock setup until boot CPU setup Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:07 ` [PATCH RFC V8 5/17] xen/pvticketlock: Xen implementation for PV ticket locks Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:07 ` [PATCH RFC V8 6/17] xen/pvticketlocks: Add xen_nopvspin parameter to disable xen pv ticketlocks Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:07 ` [PATCH RFC V8 7/17] x86/pvticketlock: Use callee-save for lock_spinning Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:07 ` [PATCH RFC V8 8/17] x86/pvticketlock: When paravirtualizing ticket locks, increment by 2 Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:08 ` [PATCH RFC V8 9/17] Split out rate limiting from jump_label.h Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:08 ` [PATCH RFC V8 10/17] x86/ticketlock: Add slowpath logic Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:08 ` [PATCH RFC V8 11/17] xen/pvticketlock: Allow interrupts to be enabled while blocking Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:08 ` [PATCH RFC V8 12/17] xen: Enable PV ticketlocks on HVM Xen Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:08 ` [PATCH RFC V8 13/17] kvm hypervisor : Add a hypercall to KVM hypervisor to support pv-ticketlocks Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:09 ` [PATCH RFC V8 14/17] kvm : Fold pv_unhalt flag into GET_MP_STATE ioctl to aid migration Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:09 ` [PATCH RFC V8 15/17] kvm guest : Add configuration support to enable debug information for KVM Guests Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:09 ` [PATCH RFC V8 16/17] kvm : Paravirtual ticketlocks support for linux guests running on KVM hypervisor Raghavendra K T
2012-05-02 10:09 ` [PATCH RFC V8 17/17] Documentation/kvm : Add documentation on Hypercalls and features used for PV spinlock Raghavendra K T
2012-05-30 11:54   ` Jan Kiszka
2012-05-30 13:44     ` Raghavendra K T
2012-05-07  8:29 ` [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks Ingo Molnar
2012-05-07  8:32   ` Avi Kivity
2012-05-07 10:58     ` Raghavendra K T
2012-05-07 12:06       ` Avi Kivity
2012-05-07 13:20         ` Raghavendra K T
2012-05-07 13:22           ` Avi Kivity
2012-05-07 13:38             ` Raghavendra K T
2012-05-07 13:46               ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2012-05-07 13:49                 ` Avi Kivity
2012-05-07 13:53                   ` Raghavendra K T
2012-05-07 13:58                     ` Avi Kivity
2012-05-07 14:47                       ` Raghavendra K T
2012-05-07 14:52                         ` Avi Kivity
2012-05-07 14:54                           ` Avi Kivity
2012-05-07 17:25                           ` Ingo Molnar
2012-05-07 20:42                             ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-05-08  6:46                               ` Nikunj A Dadhania
2012-05-15 11:26                             ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich
2012-05-08  5:25                           ` Raghavendra K T
2012-05-13 18:45                           ` Raghavendra K T [this message]
2012-05-14  4:57                             ` Nikunj A Dadhania
2012-05-14  9:01                               ` Raghavendra K T
2012-05-14  7:38                             ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2012-05-14  8:11                               ` Raghavendra K T
2012-05-16  3:19                             ` Raghavendra K T
2012-05-30 11:26                               ` Raghavendra K T
2012-06-14 12:21                                 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-05-07 13:55                   ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2012-05-07 23:15                   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2012-05-08  1:13                     ` Raghavendra K T
2012-05-08  9:08                     ` Avi Kivity
2012-05-07 13:56                 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-05-13 17:59         ` Raghavendra K T

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=4FB0014A.90604@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=attilio.rao@citrix.com \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=gleb@redhat.com \
    --cc=gregkh@suse.de \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=stephan.diestelhorst@amd.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).