linux-kernel - RE: VM performance issue in KVM guests.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:04:53 +0800
From:	"Zhang, Xiantao" <xiantao.zhang@...el.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC:	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	"Yang, Xiaowei" <xiaowei.yang@...el.com>,
	"Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@...el.com>, "Li, Xin" <xin.li@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: VM performance issue in KVM guests.

Avi Kivity wrote:
> (copying lkml and some scheduler folk)
> 
> On 04/10/2010 11:16 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>> Hi, all
>>    We are working on the scalability work for KVM guests, and found
>>    one big issue exists in linux scheduler and it may impact guest's
>> performance and scalability a lot for some special workloads running
>> in VM.  In the current Linux scheduler, there are some features to
>> enhance App's performance which are defined in the file
>> kvm.git/kernel/sched_features.h. Certainly, they are mostly
>> beneficial optimizations to improve system's performance, but
>> unluckily, some of them may hurt VM's performance and scalablity in
>> KVM case We know that if two or more vcpus of one guests are
>> scheduled to one same logical processor,  same CPU utilization may
>> generate less valid output due mutual lock in VM's OS than that are
>> scheduled to different logical processors  .And we also know that
>> VM's vcpus are emulated or executed through the threads of Qemu for
>> KVM.  If the vcpu threads of qemu are often pulled to one same
>> logical processor by some features of Linux scheduler, kvm
>> guests'performance may be hurt a lot.  In our performance testing, 
>> the results also show this performance bottleneck due to this issue.
> 
> What was the performance hit?  What was your I/O setup (image format,
> using aio?)

The issue only happens when vcpu number is over-committed(e.g. vcpu/pcpu>2) and physical cpus are saturated. For example,  when run webbench in windows OS in this case, its performance drops by 80%.  In our experiment, we are using image file through virtio, and I think aio should be used by default also. 


>> After analysis about Linux scheduler, we found it is indeed caused
>> by the known features of Linux schduler, such as AFFINE_WAKEUPS,
>> SYNC_WAKEUPS etc. With these features on, linux schduler often tries
>> to schedule the vcpu threads of one guests to one same logical
>> processor when vcpus are over-committed and logical processors are
>> saturated. Once the vcpu threads of one VM are scheduled to the same
>> LP, system performance drops dramatically with some workloads(like
>> webbench running in windows OS).       
>> 
> 
> Were the affine wakeups due to the kernel (emulated guest IPIs) or
> qemu? 

We have basic guesses about the reasone, one is wakeup affinity between vcpu threads due to IPI, and the other is wakeup affinity between io theads and vcpu threads. 

>>     To verify this finding, we also worked out a simple patch
>> attached in the mail to dynamially switch off the two sheduler
>> features mentioned above when scheduler knows the scheduling tasks
>> are vcpu threads, and we found the the whole system's performance
>> and scalability are improved a lot.  Certatinly, this patch is not
>> good for upstream, but it can enlighten us to think how to optimize
>> Linux scheduler and we also want to initiate the discussion about
>> how to make LINUX's scheduler more friendly to virtualization. 
>> Besides, this issue maybe not only kvm's special issue, insteadly it
>> should be a common issue for host-based VMs, and we also expect that
>> we can have an elegant solution to thoroughly resolve the
>> performance or scalability gap compared with hypervisor-based VMs.  
>> 
> 
> Most likely it also hits non-virtualized loads as well.  If the
> scheduler pulls two long-running threads to the same cpu, performance
> will take a hit.

Since the hit only happens when physical cpus are saturated, and sheduling non-virtualized multiple threads of one process to same processor can benefit the performance due to cache share or other affinities, but you know it hurts performance a lot once schedule two vcpu theads to a same processor due to mutual spin-lock in guests. 
Xiantao
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/