From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Srikar <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] kvm: Use vcpu_id as pivot instead of last boosted vcpu in PLE handler
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:27:05 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5045EC91.9050406@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50438978.9000405@redhat.com>
On 09/02/2012 09:59 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 09/02/2012 06:12 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:51:01AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>> The idea of starting from next vcpu (source of yield_to + 1) seem to
>>> work
>>> well for overcomitted guest rather than using last boosted vcpu. We
>>> can also
>>> remove per VM variable with this approach.
>>>
>>> Iteration for eligible candidate after this patch starts from vcpu
>>> source+1
>>> and ends at source-1 (after wrapping)
>>>
>>> Thanks Nikunj for his quick verification of the patch.
>>>
>>> Please let me know if this patch is interesting and makes sense.
>>>
>> This last_boosted_vcpu thing caused us trouble during attempt to
>> implement vcpu destruction. It is good to see it removed from this POV.
>
> I like this implementation. It should achieve pretty much
> the same as my old code, but without the downsides and without
> having to keep the same amount of global state.
>
My theoretical understanding how it would help is,
|
V
T0 ------- T1
suppose there are 4 vcpus (v1..v4) out of 32/64 vcpus simpultaneously
enter directed yield handler,
if last_boosted_vcpu = i then v1 .. v4 will start from i, and there may
be some unnecessary attempts for directed yields.
We may not see such attempts with above patch. But again I agree that,
whole directed_yield stuff itself is very complicated because of
possibility of each vcpu in different state (running/pauseloop exited
while spinning/eligible) and how they are located w.r.t each other.
Here is the result I got for ebizzy, 32 vcpu guest 32 core PLE machine
for 1x 2x and 3x overcommits.
base = 3.5-rc5 kernel with ple handler improvements patches applied
patched = base + vcpuid patch
base stdev patched stdev %improvement
1x 1955.6250 39.8961 1863.3750 37.8302 -4.71716
2x 2475.3750 165.0307 3078.8750 341.9500 24.38014
3x 2071.5556 91.5370 2112.6667 56.6171 1.98455
Note:
I have to admit that, I am seeing very inconsistent results while
experimenting with 3.6-rc kernel (not specific to vcpuid patch but as a
whole) but not sure if it is some thing wrong in my config or should I
spend some time debugging. Anybody has observed same?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-04 12:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-29 19:21 [PATCH RFC 1/1] kvm: Use vcpu_id as pivot instead of last boosted vcpu in PLE handler Raghavendra K T
2012-09-02 10:12 ` Gleb Natapov
2012-09-02 16:29 ` Rik van Riel
2012-09-04 11:57 ` Raghavendra K T [this message]
2012-09-15 2:22 ` 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=5045EC91.9050406@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.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