From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
"FENG, Jiasheng" <nikofeng@connect.hku.hk>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Wang Cheng <wangch.will@gmail.com>,
"YE, Chen" <u3534845@connect.hku.hk>,
"CHEN, XUSHENG" <chenxus@connect.hku.hk>,
Heming Cui <heming@cs.hku.hk>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU MicroCheckpointing Pause & Resume Latency
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 18:15:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ed8ce0e8-da53-7011-480c-32ee40a668f6@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170309170605.GL2480@work-vm>
On 09/03/2017 18:06, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> (cc'ing in Paolo since he knows our barrier code)
>
> * FENG, Jiasheng (nikofeng@connect.hku.hk) wrote:
>> Dear David,
>>
>> Really appreciate your feedback.
>>
>> I have proceeded the experiments in both conditions, and no matter the
>> vCPUs are in idle or busy situation, there is no difference that smp_wmb()
>> will consume a lot of time to proceed its work.
>>
>> In your opinion, may I know that what is the alternative way to minimize
>> the time consumption of smp_wmb() or any other system setting could speed
>> up smp_wmb()?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your assistance and hope to receive your feedback soon
>
> Just checking, is this on a normal x86 PC?
> Your numbers of 3-5ms just seem quite high to me but I've not tried timing that
> code.
smp_wmb does not produce a single machine instruction, so this is
probably a fluke in the profiling tool.
The most expensive part of vm_stop_force_state is going to be
bdrv_drain_all/bdrv_flush_all. bdrv_flush_all is definitely not needed
for checkpointing purposes.
Paolo
>>>
>>>> Please kindly refer to migration/checkpoint.c file, in function
>>>> capture_checkpoint, I proceeded a test to see the time consumption
>>> between
>>>> vm_stop_force_state and vm_start. I found out that even if the system is
>>>> idle, there are still 12-20ms latency recorded ( mem=2G, vCPU=4 ).
>>>> Moreover, latency will be increased while more cpus equipped by my
>>> virtual
>>>> machine. I have done some research on that and I realized that it is
>>>> related to the Memory Barrier in KVM kernel. Each cpu will proceed a
>>>> smp_wmb() request during pause & resume and it takes about 3-5ms to
>>> finish
>>>> the request ( mem=2G, vCPU=4 ).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, I would like to ask 3 questions regarding on the above issue:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. What is your consideration with calling smp_wmb() in checkpoint
>>> period;
>>>>
>>>> 2. Is it any other solution to minimize the latency to improve the
>>>> performance in checkpoint period;
>>>>
>>>> 3. Is smp_wmb() able to be safely disabled during the checkpoint period
>>>
>>> Well you'd have to understand where it's used; but for example, when taking
>>> a checkpoint you'd want to be sure that the checkpoint data contained
>>> a consistent copy of the last write data from all of the vCPUs; so I think
>>> a wmb would be needed to make sure it's consistent.
>>>
>>> I'm surprised that the smp_wmb is such a big chunk of your total checkpoint
>>> time, and that it's quite so long.
>>> Are the vCPUs idle or are they busy - does it make difference?
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>> Really appreciate your help with my problems and hope to receive your
>>>> feedback soon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again for your contribution to QEMU and it is such a masterpiece.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Niko Jiasheng Feng
>>>>
>>>> University of Hong Kong
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Niko Jiasheng *
>>>> *Feng **Computer Science(General Stream), Faculty of Engineering, The
>>>> University of Hong Kong*
>>>> Contact: (852)97908620
>>>> Address: Pokfulam Road, The University of Hong Kong
>>>> Email: nikofeng@hku.hk / niko_jiasheng@163.com
>>> --
>>> Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Niko Jiasheng *
>> *Feng **Computer Science(General Stream), Faculty of Engineering, The
>> University of Hong Kong*
>> Contact: (852)97908620
>> Address: Pokfulam Road, The University of Hong Kong
>> Email: nikofeng@hku.hk / niko_jiasheng@163.com
> --
> Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-09 17:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-09 8:49 [Qemu-devel] QEMU MicroCheckpointing Pause & Resume Latency FENG, Jiasheng
2017-03-09 15:19 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2017-03-09 16:37 ` FENG, Jiasheng
2017-03-09 17:06 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2017-03-09 17:11 ` nikofeng
2017-03-09 17:15 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
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=ed8ce0e8-da53-7011-480c-32ee40a668f6@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=chenxus@connect.hku.hk \
--cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \
--cc=heming@cs.hku.hk \
--cc=nikofeng@connect.hku.hk \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=u3534845@connect.hku.hk \
--cc=wangch.will@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).