On 03/01/2011 08:20 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > It seems like we need a good mixed workload benchmark. So far we've > > only tested worst case, with a pure emulated I/O test, and best case, > > with a pure memory test. Ordering an array only helps the latter, and > > only barely beats the tree, so I suspect overall performance would be > > better with a tree. > > But if we cache the missed-all-memslots result in the spte, we eliminate > the worst case, and are left with just the best case. There's potentially a lot of entries between best case and worst case.
The mid case is where we have a lot of small slots which are continuously flushed. That would be (ept=0 && new mappings continuously established) || (lots of small mappings && lots of host paging activity). I don't know of any guests that continuously reestablish BAR mappings; and host paging activity doesn't apply to device assignment. What are we left with?
> > The problem here is that all workloads will cache all memslots very > quickly into sptes and all lookups will be misses. There are two cases > where we have lookups that hit the memslots structure: ept=0, and host > swap. Neither are things we want to optimize too heavily. Which seems to suggest that: A. making those misses fast = win B. making those misses fast + caching misses = win++ C. we don't care if the sorted array is subtly faster for ept=0 Sound right? So is the question whether cached misses alone gets us 99% of the improvement since hits are already getting cached in sptes for cases we care about?
Yes, that's my feeling. Caching those misses is a lot more important than speeding them up, since the cache will stay valid for long periods, and since the hit rate will be very high.
Cache+anything=O(1) no-cache+tree=O(log(n)) no-cache+array=O(n) -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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