RE: [PATCH] kvm: handle last_boosted_vcpu = 0 case

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

 



Hello,

I am just catching up on this email thread... 

Perhaps one of you may be able to help answer this query.. preferably along with some data.  [BTW, I do understand the basic intent behind PLE in a typical [sweet spot] use case where there is over subscription etc. and the need to optimize the PLE handler in the host etc. ]

In a use case where the host has fewer but much larger guests (say 40VCPUs and higher) and there is no over subscription (i.e. # of vcpus across guests <= physical cpus in the host  and perhaps each guest has their vcpu's pinned to specific physical cpus for other reasons), I would like to understand if/how  the PLE really helps ?  For these use cases would it be ok to turn PLE off (ple_gap=0) since is no real need to take an exit and find some other VCPU to yield to ? 

Thanks
Vinod

-----Original Message-----
From: Raghavendra K T [mailto:raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:22 AM
To: Andrew Jones
Cc: Rik van Riel; Marcelo Tosatti; Srikar; Srivatsa Vaddagiri; Peter Zijlstra; Nikunj A. Dadhania; KVM; LKML; Gleb Natapov; Vinod, Chegu; Jeremy Fitzhardinge; Avi Kivity; Ingo Molnar
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: handle last_boosted_vcpu = 0 case

On 06/28/2012 09:30 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> In summary, current PV has huge benefit on non-PLE machine.
>>
>> On PLE machine, the results become very sensitive to load, type of 
>> workload and SPIN_THRESHOLD. Also PLE interference has significant 
>> effect on them. But still it has slight edge over non PV.
>>
>
> Hi Raghu,
>
> sorry for my slow response. I'm on vacation right now (until the 9th 
> of July) and I have limited access to mail.

Ok. Happy Vacation :)

Also, thanks for
> continuing the benchmarking. Question, when you compare PLE vs.
> non-PLE, are you using different machines (one with and one without), 
> or are you disabling its use by loading the kvm module with the 
> ple_gap=0 modparam as I did?

Yes, I am doing the same when I say with PLE disabled and comparing the benchmarks (i.e loading kvm module with ple_gap=0).

But older non-PLE results were on a different machine altogether. (I had limited access to PLE machine).


��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����o�^n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�

[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