- To: Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks
- From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:33:49 +0530
- Cc: KVM <kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alan Meadows <alan.meadows@xxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Attilio Rao <attilio.rao@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>, Virtualization <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Xen Devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@xxxxxxx>
- Delivered-to: virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <4F743247.5080407@redhat.com>
- Organization: IBM
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1
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.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
[KVM Development]
[CentOS Virtualization]
[Netdev]
[Ethernet Bridging]
[Linux Wireless]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Security]
[Linux for Hams]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Yosemite]
[Yosemite Forum]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux RAID]
[Linux Admin]
[Samba]
[Find Someone Nice]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux Resources]