Re: [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks

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

 



On 05/14/2012 01:08 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 05/13/2012 11:45 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 05/07/2012 08:22 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:

I could not come with pv-flush results (also Nikunj had clarified that
the result was on NOn PLE

I'd like to see those numbers, then.

Ingo, please hold on the kvm-specific patches, meanwhile.


3 guests 8GB RAM, 1 used for kernbench
(kernbench -f -H -M -o 20) other for cpuhog (shell script with  while
true do hackbench)

1x: no hogs
2x: 8hogs in one guest
3x: 8hogs each in two guest

kernbench on PLE:
Machine : IBM xSeries with Intel(R) Xeon(R)  X7560 2.27GHz CPU with 32
core, with 8 online cpus and 4*64GB RAM.

The average is taken over 4 iterations with 3 run each (4*3=12). and
stdev is calculated over mean reported in each run.


A): 8 vcpu guest

                  BASE                    BASE+patch %improvement w.r.t
                  mean (sd)               mean (sd)
patched kernel time
case 1*1x:    61.7075  (1.17872)    60.93     (1.475625)    1.27605
case 1*2x:    107.2125 (1.3821349)    97.506675 (1.3461878)   9.95401
case 1*3x:    144.3515 (1.8203927)    138.9525  (0.58309319)  3.8855


B): 16 vcpu guest
                  BASE                    BASE+patch %improvement w.r.t
                  mean (sd)               mean (sd)
patched kernel time
case 2*1x:    70.524   (1.5941395)    69.68866  (1.9392529)   1.19867
case 2*2x:    133.0738 (1.4558653)    124.8568  (1.4544986)   6.58114
case 2*3x:    206.0094 (1.3437359)    181.4712  (2.9134116)   13.5218

B): 32 vcpu guest
                  BASE                    BASE+patch %improvementw.r.t
                  mean (sd)               mean (sd)
patched kernel time
case 4*1x:    100.61046 (2.7603485)     85.48734  (2.6035035)  17.6905

What does the "4*1x" notation mean? Do these workloads have overcommit
of the PCPU resources?

When I measured it, even quite small amounts of overcommit lead to large
performance drops with non-pv ticket locks (on the order of 10%
improvements when there were 5 busy VCPUs on a 4 cpu system).  I never
tested it on larger machines, but I guess that represents around 25%
overcommit, or 40 busy VCPUs on a 32-PCPU system.

All the above measurements are on PLE machine. It is 32 vcpu single
guest on a 8 pcpu.

(PS:One problem I saw in my kernbench run itself is that
number of threads spawned = 20 instead of 2* number of vcpu. I ll
correct during next measurement.)

"even quite small amounts of overcommit lead to large performance drops
with non-pv ticket locks":

This is very much true on non PLE machine. probably compilation takes
even a day vs just one hour. ( with just 1:3x overcommit I had got 25 x
speedup).

--
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