On 05/29/2013 09:32 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:09:09PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> This information is I replied Gleb in his mail where he raced a question that
>> why "collapse tlb flush is needed":
>>
>> ======
>> It seems no.
>> Since we have reloaded mmu before zapping the obsolete pages, the mmu-lock
>> is easily contended. I did the simple track:
>>
>> + int num = 0;
>> restart:
>> list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(sp, node,
>> &kvm->arch.active_mmu_pages, link) {
>> @@ -4265,6 +4265,7 @@ restart:
>> if (batch >= BATCH_ZAP_PAGES &&
>> cond_resched_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock)) {
>> batch = 0;
>> + num++;
>> goto restart;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -4277,6 +4278,7 @@ restart:
>> * may use the pages.
>> */
>> kvm_mmu_commit_zap_page(kvm, &invalid_list);
>> + printk("lock-break: %d.\n", num);
>> }
>>
>> I do read pci rom when doing kernel building in the guest which
>> has 1G memory and 4vcpus with ept enabled, this is the normal
>> workload and normal configuration.
>>
>> # dmesg
>> [ 2338.759099] lock-break: 8.
>> [ 2339.732442] lock-break: 5.
>> [ 2340.904446] lock-break: 3.
>> [ 2342.513514] lock-break: 3.
>> [ 2343.452229] lock-break: 3.
>> [ 2344.981599] lock-break: 4.
>>
>> Basically, we need to break many times.
>
> Should measure kvm_mmu_zap_all latency.
>
>> ======
>>
>> You can see we should break 3 times to zap all pages even if we have zapoed
>> 10 pages in batch. It is obviously that it need break more times without
>> batch-zapping.
>
> Again, breaking should be no problem, what matters is latency. Please
> measure kvm_mmu_zap_all latency after all optimizations to justify
> this minimum batching.
Okay, okay. I will benchmark the latency.
--
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
