On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 06:36:30PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > processor : 0
> > vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
> > cpu family : 16
> > model : 8
> > model name : Six-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 8435
> > stepping : 0
> > cpu MHz : 800.000
> > cache size : 512 KB
> > physical id : 0
> > siblings : 6
> > core id : 0
> > cpu cores : 6
> > apicid : 8
> > initial apicid : 0
> > fpu : yes
> > fpu_exception : yes
> > cpuid level : 5
> > wp : yes
> > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc rep_good nopl nonstop_tsc extd_apicid pni monitor cx16 popcnt lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw ibs skinit wdt npt lbrv svm_lock nrip_save pausefilter
> > bogomips : 5199.87
> > TLB size : 1024 4K pages
> > clflush size : 64
> > cache_alignment : 64
> > address sizes : 48 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
> > power management: ts ttp tm stc 100mhzsteps hwpstate
>
> Hmm, svm code seems less optimized for MMIO, but PIO
> is almost identical. Gleb says the unittest is broken
> on AMD so I'll wait until it's fixed to test.
>
It's not unittest is broken, its my environment is broken :)
> Did you do PIO reads by chance?
>
> > >
> > > Or could be different software, this is on top of 3.9.0-rc5, what
> > > did you try?
> >
> > 3.0 plus kvm-kmod of whatever was current back in autumn :).
> >
> > >
> > >> MST, could you please do a real world latency benchmark with virtio-net and
> > >>
> > >> * normal ioeventfd
> > >> * mmio-pv eventfd
> > >> * hcall eventfd
> > >
> > > I can't do this right away, sorry. For MMIO we are discussing the new
> > > layout on the virtio mailing list, guest and qemu need a patch for this
> > > too. My hcall patches are stale and would have to be brought up to
> > > date.
> > >
> > >
> > >> to give us some idea how much performance we would gain from each approach? Thoughput should be completely unaffected anyway, since virtio just coalesces kicks internally.
> > >
> > > Latency is dominated by the scheduling latency.
> > > This means virtio-net is not the best benchmark.
> >
> > So what is a good benchmark?
>
> E.g. ping pong stress will do but need to look at CPU utilization,
> that's what is affected, not latency.
>
> > Is there any difference in speed at all? I strongly doubt it. One of virtio's main points is to reduce the number of kicks.
>
> For this stage of the project I think microbenchmarks are more appropriate.
> Doubling the price of exit is likely to be measureable. 30 cycles likely
> not ...
>
> > >
> > >> I'm also slightly puzzled why the wildcard eventfd mechanism is so significantly slower, while it was only a few percent on my test system. What are the numbers you're listing above? Cycles? How many cycles do you execute in a second?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Alex
> > >
> > >
> > > It's the TSC divided by number of iterations. kvm unittest this value, here's
> > > what it does (removed some dead code):
> > >
> > > #define GOAL (1ull << 30)
> > >
> > > do {
> > > iterations *= 2;
> > > t1 = rdtsc();
> > >
> > > for (i = 0; i < iterations; ++i)
> > > func();
> > > t2 = rdtsc();
> > > } while ((t2 - t1) < GOAL);
> > > printf("%s %d\n", test->name, (int)((t2 - t1) / iterations));
> >
> > So it's the number of cycles per run.
> >
> > That means translated my numbers are:
> >
> > MMIO: 4307
> > PIO: 3658
> > HCALL: 1756
> >
> > MMIO - PIO = 649
> >
> > which aligns roughly with your PV MMIO callback.
> >
> > My MMIO benchmark was to poke the LAPIC version register. That does go through instruction emulation, no?
> >
> >
> > Alex
>
> Why wouldn't it?
>
Intel decodes access to apic page, but we use it only for fast eoi.
--
Gleb.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
