On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 09:28:05AM -0700, David Matlack wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 9:24 AM Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 04:49:23PM -0700, David Matlack wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 05:58:30PM +0000, Colton Lewis wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/perf_test_util.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/perf_test_util.c
> > > > index 3c7b93349fef..9838d1ad9166 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/perf_test_util.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/perf_test_util.c
> > > > @@ -52,6 +52,9 @@ void perf_test_guest_code(uint32_t vcpu_idx)
> > > > struct perf_test_vcpu_args *vcpu_args = &pta->vcpu_args[vcpu_idx];
> > > > uint64_t gva;
> > > > uint64_t pages;
> > > > + uint64_t addr;
> > > > + bool random_access = pta->random_access;
> > > > + bool populated = false;
> > > > int i;
> > > >
> > > > gva = vcpu_args->gva;
> > > > @@ -62,7 +65,11 @@ void perf_test_guest_code(uint32_t vcpu_idx)
> > > >
> > > > while (true) {
> > > > for (i = 0; i < pages; i++) {
> > > > - uint64_t addr = gva + (i * pta->guest_page_size);
> > > > + if (populated && random_access)
> > >
> > > Skipping the populate phase makes sense to ensure everything is
> > > populated I guess. What was your rational?
> >
> > That's it. Wanted to ensure everything was populated. Random
> > population won't hit every page, but those unpopulated pages might be
> > hit on subsequent iterations. I originally let population be random
> > too and suspect this was driving an odd behavior I noticed early in
> > testing where later iterations would be much faster than earlier ones.
> >
> > > Either way I think this policy should be driven by the test, rather than
> > > harde-coded in perf_test_guest_code(). i.e. Move the call
> > > perf_test_set_random_access() in dirty_log_perf_test.c to just after the
> > > population phase.
> >
> > That makes sense. Will do.
>
> Ah but if you get rid of the table refill between iterations, each
> vCPU will access the same pages every iteration. At that point there's
> no reason to distinguish the populate phase from the other phases, so
> perhaps just drop the special case for the populate phase altogether?
You're right. Will do.
