From: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, joao.m.martins@oracle.com,
david.vrabel@citrix.com, dario.faggioli@citrix.com,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Use vAPIC when doing IPI for PVHVM guests.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 07:05:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5615F9AD.101@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1444249310-23433-1-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
On 10/07/2015 10:21 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I was running some tools in which we would heavily do rescheduling
> of events - and realized to my surprise that the event channels (and
> the hypercall) would slow things down. If I used the vAPIC with its
> IPI support (so no VMEXIT) I got much much better performance.
>
> Now this is an RFC because:
> 1). I hadn't verified from the xentrace how much less VMEXITS we get.
> But I remember Boris's patches and they gave at least 10%.
> I think this will get the same performance or even better.
>
> 2). I don't know what to do with migration. That is if the guest
> migrates to older hardware it needs to recheck this I presume?
Same problem applies to many other features. In case you want to
migrate to a machine with less features you'd have to mask those
features in the cpuid data of the domain.
> 3). Should this be enabled by default? I did get better performance
> but that was synthetic.
Having some benchmark results would help to decide this. :-)
I'd be especially interested in checking "no vcpu over-commitment"
and "heavy vcpu over-commitment" scenarios regarding the effect of
the feature.
>
> Thoughts?
I like the idea.
Juergen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-08 5:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-07 20:21 [RFC PATCH] Use vAPIC when doing IPI for PVHVM guests Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2015-10-07 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/2] xen/apic: Use vAPIC for IPI if the hardware supports it Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2015-10-07 20:32 ` kbuild test robot
2015-10-07 20:21 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] xen_nopv: Combine a bunch of the PV features that can be disabled Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2015-10-07 21:29 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2015-10-08 5:05 ` Juergen Gross [this message]
2015-10-08 9:30 ` [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] Use vAPIC when doing IPI for PVHVM guests Andrew Cooper
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=5615F9AD.101@suse.com \
--to=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=dario.faggioli@citrix.com \
--cc=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
--cc=joao.m.martins@oracle.com \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/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).