Re: [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On 03/29/2012 03:28 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/28/2012 08:21 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:Looks like a good baseline on which to build the KVM implementation. We might need some handshake to prevent interference on the host side with the PLE code.I think I still missed some point in Avi's comment. I agree that PLE may be interfering with above patches (resulting in less performance advantages). but we have not seen performance degradation with the patches in earlier benchmarks. [ theoretically since patch has very slight advantage over PLE that atleast it knows who should run next ].The advantage grows with the vcpu counts and overcommit ratio. If you have N vcpus and M:1 overcommit, PLE has to guess from N/M queued vcpus while your patch knows who to wake up.
Yes. I agree.
So TODO in my list on this is: 1. More analysis of performance on PLE mc. 2. Seeing how to implement handshake to increase performance (if PLE + patch combination have slight negative effect).I can think of two options:
I really like below ideas. Thanks for that!.
- from the PLE handler, don't wake up a vcpu that is sleeping because it is waiting for a kick
How about, adding another pass in the beginning of kvm_vcpu_on_spin()to check if any vcpu is already kicked. This would almost result in yield_to(kicked_vcpu). IMO this is also worth trying.
will try above ideas soon.
- look at other sources of pause loops (I guess smp_call_function() is the significant source) and adjust them to use the same mechanism, and ask the host to disable PLE exiting. This can be done incrementally later.
Yes.. this can wait a bit. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html