Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Weight-balanced binary tree + KVM growable memory slots using wbtree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux