On 10/04/2012 12:49 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: > On 10/03/2012 10:35 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 10/03/2012 02:22 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: >>>> So I think it's worth trying again with ple_window of 20000-40000. >>>> >>> >>> Hi Avi, >>> >>> I ran different benchmarks increasing ple_window, and results does not >>> seem to be encouraging for increasing ple_window. >> >> Thanks for testing! Comments below. >> >>> Results: >>> 16 core PLE machine with 16 vcpu guest. >>> >>> base kernel = 3.6-rc5 + ple handler optimization patch >>> base_pleopt_8k = base kernel + ple window = 8k >>> base_pleopt_16k = base kernel + ple window = 16k >>> base_pleopt_32k = base kernel + ple window = 32k >>> >>> >>> Percentage improvements of benchmarks w.r.t base_pleopt with >>> ple_window = 4096 >>> >>> base_pleopt_8k base_pleopt_16k base_pleopt_32k >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> kernbench_1x -5.54915 -15.94529 -44.31562 >>> kernbench_2x -7.89399 -17.75039 -37.73498 >> >> So, 44% degradation even with no overcommit? That's surprising. > > Yes. Kernbench was run with #threads = #vcpu * 2 as usual. Is it > spending 8 times the original ple_window cycles for 16 vcpus > significant? A PLE exit when not overcommitted cannot do any good, it is better to spin in the guest rather that look for candidates on the host. In fact when we benchmark we often disable PLE completely. > >> >>> I also got perf top output to analyse the difference. Difference comes >>> because of flushtlb (and also spinlock). >> >> That's in the guest, yes? > > Yes. Perf is in guest. > >> >>> >>> Ebizzy run for 4k ple_window >>> - 87.20% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore >>> - arch_local_irq_restore >>> - 100.00% _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore >>> + 52.89% release_pages >>> + 47.10% pagevec_lru_move_fn >>> - 5.71% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore >>> - arch_local_irq_restore >>> + 86.03% default_send_IPI_mask_allbutself_phys >>> + 13.96% default_send_IPI_mask_sequence_phys >>> - 3.10% [kernel] [k] smp_call_function_many >>> smp_call_function_many >>> >>> >>> Ebizzy run for 32k ple_window >>> >>> - 91.40% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore >>> - arch_local_irq_restore >>> - 100.00% _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore >>> + 53.13% release_pages >>> + 46.86% pagevec_lru_move_fn >>> - 4.38% [kernel] [k] smp_call_function_many >>> smp_call_function_many >>> - 2.51% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore >>> - arch_local_irq_restore >>> + 90.76% default_send_IPI_mask_allbutself_phys >>> + 9.24% default_send_IPI_mask_sequence_phys >>> >> >> Both the 4k and the 32k results are crazy. Why is >> arch_local_irq_restore() so prominent? Do you have a very high >> interrupt rate in the guest? > > How to measure if I have high interrupt rate in guest? > From /proc/interrupt numbers I am not able to judge :( 'vmstat 1' > > I went back and got the results on a 32 core machine with 32 vcpu guest. > Strangely, I got result supporting the claim that increasing ple_window > helps for non-overcommitted scenario. > > 32 core 32 vcpu guest 1x scenarios. > > ple_gap = 0 > kernbench: Elapsed Time 38.61 > ebizzy: 7463 records/s > > ple_window = 4k > kernbench: Elapsed Time 43.5067 > ebizzy: 2528 records/s > > ple_window = 32k > kernebench : Elapsed Time 39.4133 > ebizzy: 7196 records/s So maybe something was wrong with the first measurement. > > > perf top for ebizzy for above: > ple_gap = 0 > - 84.74% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore > - arch_local_irq_restore > - 100.00% _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore > + 50.96% release_pages > + 49.02% pagevec_lru_move_fn > - 6.57% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore > - arch_local_irq_restore > + 92.54% default_send_IPI_mask_allbutself_phys > + 7.46% default_send_IPI_mask_sequence_phys > - 1.54% [kernel] [k] smp_call_function_many > smp_call_function_many Again the numbers are ridiculously high for arch_local_irq_restore. Maybe there's a bad perf/kvm interaction when we're injecting an interrupt, I can't believe we're spending 84% of the time running the popf instruction. > > ple_window = 32k > - 84.47% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore > + arch_local_irq_restore > - 6.46% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore > - arch_local_irq_restore > + 93.51% default_send_IPI_mask_allbutself_phys > + 6.49% default_send_IPI_mask_sequence_phys > - 1.80% [kernel] [k] smp_call_function_many > - smp_call_function_many > + 99.98% native_flush_tlb_others > > > ple_window = 4k > - 91.35% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore > - arch_local_irq_restore > - 100.00% _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore > + 53.19% release_pages > + 46.81% pagevec_lru_move_fn > - 3.90% [kernel] [k] smp_call_function_many > smp_call_function_many > - 2.94% [kernel] [k] arch_local_irq_restore > - arch_local_irq_restore > + 93.12% default_send_IPI_mask_allbutself_phys > + 6.88% default_send_IPI_mask_sequence_phys > > Let me know if I can try something here.. > /me confused :( > I'm even more confused. Please try 'perf kvm' from the host, it does fewer dirty tricks with the PMU and so may be more accurate. -- 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
