From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51772) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fYTMM-00069T-7Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2018 05:37:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fYTMK-000146-L6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2018 05:37:02 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:43904 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fYTMK-00013b-F9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2018 05:37:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 10:36:50 +0100 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Message-ID: <20180628093650.GB3513@redhat.com> Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= References: <20180604095520.8563-1-xiaoguangrong@tencent.com> <20180604095520.8563-7-xiaoguangrong@tencent.com> <20180619073034.GA14814@xz-mi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 06/12] migration: do not detect zero page for compression List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Xiao Guangrong Cc: Peter Xu , kvm@vger.kernel.org, mst@redhat.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, Xiao Guangrong , dgilbert@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, wei.w.wang@intel.com, jiang.biao2@zte.com.cn, pbonzini@redhat.com On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 05:12:39PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote: >=20 > Hi Peter, >=20 > Sorry for the delay as i was busy on other things. >=20 > On 06/19/2018 03:30 PM, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 05:55:14PM +0800, guangrong.xiao@gmail.com wr= ote: > > > From: Xiao Guangrong > > >=20 > > > Detecting zero page is not a light work, we can disable it > > > for compression that can handle all zero data very well > >=20 > > Is there any number shows how the compression algo performs better > > than the zero-detect algo? Asked since AFAIU buffer_is_zero() might > > be fast, depending on how init_accel() is done in util/bufferiszero.c= . >=20 > This is the comparison between zero-detection and compression (the targ= et > buffer is all zero bit): >=20 > Zero 810 ns Compression: 26905 ns. > Zero 417 ns Compression: 8022 ns. > Zero 408 ns Compression: 7189 ns. > Zero 400 ns Compression: 7255 ns. > Zero 412 ns Compression: 7016 ns. > Zero 411 ns Compression: 7035 ns. > Zero 413 ns Compression: 6994 ns. > Zero 399 ns Compression: 7024 ns. > Zero 416 ns Compression: 7053 ns. > Zero 405 ns Compression: 7041 ns. >=20 > Indeed, zero-detection is faster than compression. >=20 > However during our profiling for the live_migration thread (after rever= ted this patch), > we noticed zero-detection cost lots of CPU: >=20 > 12.01% kqemu qemu-system-x86_64 [.] buffer_zero_sse2 = = = =E2=97=86 > 7.60% kqemu qemu-system-x86_64 [.] ram_bytes_total = = = =E2=96=92 > 6.56% kqemu qemu-system-x86_64 [.] qemu_event_set = = = =E2=96=92 > 5.61% kqemu qemu-system-x86_64 [.] qemu_put_qemu_file = = = =E2=96=92 > 5.00% kqemu qemu-system-x86_64 [.] __ring_put = = = =E2=96=92 > 4.89% kqemu [kernel.kallsyms] [k] copy_user_enhanced_fa= st_string = = =E2=96=92 > 4.71% kqemu qemu-system-x86_64 [.] compress_thread_data_= done = = =E2=96=92 > 3.63% kqemu qemu-system-x86_64 [.] ring_is_full = = = =E2=96=92 > 2.89% kqemu qemu-system-x86_64 [.] __ring_is_full = = = =E2=96=92 > 2.68% kqemu qemu-system-x86_64 [.] threads_submit_reques= t_prepare = = =E2=96=92 > 2.60% kqemu qemu-system-x86_64 [.] ring_mp_get = = = =E2=96=92 > 2.25% kqemu qemu-system-x86_64 [.] ring_get = = = =E2=96=92 > 1.96% kqemu libc-2.12.so [.] memcpy >=20 > After this patch, the workload is moved to the worker thread, is it > acceptable? It depends on your point of view. If you have spare / idle CPUs on the ho= st, then moving workload to a thread is ok, despite the CPU cost of compressi= on in that thread being much higher what what was replaced, since you won't = be taking CPU resources away from other contending workloads. I'd venture to suggest though that we should probably *not* be optimizing= for the case of idle CPUs on the host. More realistic is to expect that the h= ost CPUs are near fully committed to work, and thus the (default) goal should= be to minimize CPU overhead for the host as a whole. From this POV, zero-pag= e detection is better than compression due to > x10 better speed. Given the CPU overheads of compression, I think it has fairly narrow use in migration in general when considering hosts are often highly committed on CPU. Regards, Daniel --=20 |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberran= ge :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.c= om :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberran= ge :|