On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:01:54PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 10/30/2012 12:04 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:27:52AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>On 10/29/2012 11:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 19:37 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>>>+/*
> >>>>+ * A load of 2048 corresponds to 1:1 overcommit
> >>>>+ * undercommit threshold is half the 1:1 overcommit
> >>>>+ * overcommit threshold is 1.75 times of 1:1 overcommit threshold
> >>>>+ */
> >>>>+#define COMMIT_THRESHOLD (FIXED_1)
> >>>>+#define UNDERCOMMIT_THRESHOLD (COMMIT_THRESHOLD >> 1)
> >>>>+#define OVERCOMMIT_THRESHOLD ((COMMIT_THRESHOLD << 1) -
> >>>>(COMMIT_THRESHOLD >> 2))
> >>>>+
> >>>>+unsigned long kvm_system_load(void)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+ unsigned long load;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ load = avenrun[0] + FIXED_1/200;
> >>>>+ load = load / num_online_cpus();
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ return load;
> >>>>+}
> >>>
> >>>ARGH.. no that's wrong.. very wrong.
> >>>
> >>> 1) avenrun[] EXPORT_SYMBOL says it should be removed, that's not a
> >>>joke.
> >>
> >>Okay.
> >>
> >>> 2) avenrun[] is a global load, do not ever use a global load measure
> >>
> >>This makes sense. Using a local optimization that leads to near global
> >>optimization is the way to go.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 3) avenrun[] has nothing what so ever to do with runqueue lengths,
> >>>someone with a gazillion tasks in D state will get a huge load but the
> >>>cpu is very idle.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I used loadavg as an alternative measure. But the above condition
> >>poses a concern for that.
> >>
> >>Okay, now IIUC, usage of *any* global measure is bad?
> >>
> >>Because I was also thinking to use nrrunning()/ num_online_cpus(), to
> >>get an idea of global overcommit sense. (ofcourse since, this involves
> >>iteration over per CPU nrrunning, I wanted to calculate this
> >>periodically)
> >>
> >>The overall logic, of having overcommit_threshold,
> >>undercommit_threshold, I wanted to use for even dynamic ple_window
> >>tuning purpose.
> >>
> >>so logic was:
> >>< undercommit_threshold => 16k ple_window
> >>>overcommit_threshold => 4k window.
> >>for in between case scale the ple_window accordingly.
> >>
> >>The alternative was to decide depending on how ple handler succeeded in
> >>yield_to. But I thought, that is too sensitive and more overhead.
> >>
> >>This topic may deserve different thread, but thought I shall table it here.
> >>
> >>So, Thinking about the alternatives to implement, logic such as
> >>
> >>(a) if(undercommitted)
> >> just go back and spin rather than going for yield_to iteration.
> >>(b) if (overcommitted)
> >> better to yield rather than spinning logic
> >>
> >> of current patches..
> >>
> >>[ ofcourse, (a) is already met to large extent by your patches..]
> >>
> >>So I think everything boils down to
> >>
> >>"how do we measure these two thresholds without much overhead in a
> >>compliant way"
> >>
> >>Ideas welcome..
> >>
> >
> >What happened to Avi's preempt notifier idea for determining
> >under/overcommit? If nobody has picked that up yet, then I'll go ahead and
> >try to prototype it.
>
> Hi Drew,
>
> I had assumed my priority order as
> 1) this patch series 2) dynamic ple window 3) preempt notifiers.
>
> But I do not have any problem on re-prioritizing / helping on these
> as far as we are clear on what we are looking into.
>
> I was thinking about preempt notifier idea as a tool to refine
> candidate VCPUs. But you are right, Avi, also told we can use
> bitmap/counter itself as an indicator to decide whether we go ahead
> with yield_to at all.
>
> IMO, only patch(3) has some conflict because of various approach we can
> try.May be we should attack the problem via all 3 solutions at once and
> decide?
>
> To be frank, within each of the approach, trying/analyzing all the
> possibilities made the things slow.. (my end).
>
> Suggestions..?
>
I agree, it's a complex problem that needs lots of trial+error work. We
should definitely work in parallel on multiple ideas. I'll go ahead and
dig into the preempt notifiers.
Drew
--
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
