Re: [PATCH RFC V4 0/5] kvm : Paravirt-spinlock support for KVM guests

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 02:25:12PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 01/18/2012 12:06 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >On 01/17/2012 11:09 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> [...]
> >>>>>A. pre-3.2.0 with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = n
> >>>>>B. pre-3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches with
> >>>>>CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = n
> >>>>>C. pre-3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches with
> >>>>>CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = y
> >>>>>D. pre-3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches + V5 patches with
> >>>>>CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = n
> >>>>>E. pre-3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches + V5 patches with
> >>>>>CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = y
> [...]
> >>Maybe it'd be a good idea to create a small in-kernel microbenchmark
> >>with a couple threads that take spinlocks, then do work for a
> >>specified number of cycles, then release them again and start anew. At
> >>the end of it, we can check how long the whole thing took for n runs.
> >>That would enable us to measure the worst case scenario.
> >>
> >
> >It was a quick test. two iteration of kernbench (=6runs) and had ensured
> >cache is cleared.
> >
> >echo "1" > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> >ccache -C. Yes may be I can run test as you mentioned..
> >
> 
> Sorry for late reply. Was trying to do more performance analysis.
> Measured the worst case scenario with a spinlock stress driver
> [ attached below ]. I think S1 (below) is what you were
> looking for:
> 
> 2 types of scenarios:
> S1.
> lock()
> increment counter.
> unlock()
> 
> S2:
> do_somework()
> lock()
> do_conditional_work() /* this is to give variable spinlock hold time */
> unlock()
> 
> Setup:
> Machine : IBM xSeries with Intel(R) Xeon(R) x5570 2.93GHz CPU with 8
> core , 64GB RAM, 16 online cpus.
> The below results are taken across total 18 Runs of
> insmod spinlock_thread.ko nr_spinlock_threads=4 loop_count=4000000
> 
> Results:
> scenario S1: plain counter
> ==========================
>     total Mega cycles taken for completion (std)
> A.  12343.833333      (1254.664021)
> B.  12817.111111      (917.791606)
> C.  13426.555556      (844.882978)
> 
> %improvement w.r.t BASE     -8.77
> 
> scenario S2: counter with variable work inside lock + do_work_outside_lock
> =========================================================================
> A.   25077.888889      (1349.471703)
> B.   24906.777778      (1447.853874)
> C.   21287.000000      (2731.643644)
> 
> %improvement w.r.t BASE      15.12
> 
> So it seems we have worst case overhead of around 8%. But we see
> improvement of at-least 15% once when little more time is spent in
> critical section.

Is this with collecting the histogram information about spinlocks? We found
that if you enable that for production runs it makes them quite slower.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization