On 01/17/2012 11:09 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 17.01.2012, at 18:27, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 01/17/2012 12:12 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 16.01.2012, at 19:38, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 01/16/2012 07:53 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 16.01.2012, at 15:20, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
* Alexander Graf<agraf@xxxxxxx> [2012-01-16 04:57:45]:
Speaking of which - have you benchmarked performance degradation of pv ticket locks on bare metal?
You mean, run kernel on bare metal with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
enabled and compare how it performs with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS disabled for
some workload(s)?
Yup
In some sense, the 1x overcommitcase results posted does measure the overhead
of (pv-)spinlocks no? We don't see any overhead in that case for atleast
kernbench ..
Result for Non PLE machine :
============================
[snip]
Kernbench:
BASE BASE+patch
What is BASE really? Is BASE already with the PV spinlocks enabled? I'm having a hard time understanding which tree you're working against, since the prerequisites aren't upstream yet.
Alex
Sorry for confusion, I think I was little imprecise on the BASE.
The BASE is pre 3.2.0 + Jeremy's following patches:
xadd (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/4/328)
x86/ticketlocklock (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/12/496).
So this would have ticketlock cleanups from Jeremy and
CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=y
BASE+patch = pre 3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches + above V5 PV spinlock
series and CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=y
In both the cases CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=y.
So let,
A. pre-3.2.0 with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = n
B. pre-3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = n
C. pre-3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = y
D. pre-3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches + V5 patches with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = n
E. pre-3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches + V5 patches with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = y
is it performance of A vs E ? (currently C vs E)
Since D and E only matter with KVM in use, yes, I'm mostly interested in A, B and C :).
Alex
setup :
Native: IBM xSeries with Intel(R) Xeon(R) x5570 2.93GHz CPU with 8 core , 64GB RAM, (16 cpu online)
Guest : Single guest with 8 VCPU 4GB Ram.
benchmark : kernbench -f -H -M -o 20
Here is the result :
Native Run
============
case A case B %improvement case C %improvement
56.1917 (2.57125) 56.035 (2.02439) 0.278867 56.27 (2.40401) -0.139344
This looks a lot like statistical derivation. How often did you execute the test case? Did you make sure to have a clean base state every time?
Maybe it'd be a good idea to create a small in-kernel microbenchmark with a couple threads that take spinlocks, then do work for a specified number of cycles, then release them again and start anew. At the end of it, we can check how long the whole thing took for n runs. That would enable us to measure the worst case scenario.
It was a quick test. two iteration of kernbench (=6runs) and had
ensured cache is cleared.
echo "1" > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
ccache -C. Yes may be I can run test as you mentioned..
Guest Run
============
case A case B %improvement case C %improvement
166.999 (15.7613) 161.876 (14.4874) 3.06768 161.24 (12.6497) 3.44852
Is this the same machine? Why is the guest 3x slower?
Yes non - ple machine but with all 16 cpus online. 3x slower you meant
case A is slower (pre-3.2.0 with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = n) ?
Alex
We do not see much overhead in native run with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = y
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
