| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 21:59:47 -0500 From: Andrew Theurer <habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, Srikar <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Jiannan Ouyang <ouyang@...pitt.edu>, chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] kvm: Handle undercommitted guest case in PLE handler On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 00:21 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: > * Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> [2012-10-04 17:00:28]: > > > On 10/04/2012 03:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 14:41 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > >> > > >> Again the numbers are ridiculously high for arch_local_irq_restore. > > >> Maybe there's a bad perf/kvm interaction when we're injecting an > > >> interrupt, I can't believe we're spending 84% of the time running the > > >> popf instruction. > > > > > > Smells like a software fallback that doesn't do NMI, hrtimer based > > > sampling typically hits popf where we re-enable interrupts. > > > > Good nose, that's probably it. Raghavendra, can you ensure that the PMU > > is properly exposed? 'dmesg' in the guest will tell. If it isn't, -cpu > > host will expose it (and a good idea anyway to get best performance). > > > > Hi Avi, you are right. SandyBridge machine result was not proper. > I cleaned up the services, enabled PMU, re-ran all the test again. > > Here is the summary: > We do get good benefit by increasing ple window. Though we don't > see good benefit for kernbench and sysbench, for ebizzy, we get huge > improvement for 1x scenario. (almost 2/3rd of ple disabled case). > > Let me know if you think we can increase the default ple_window > itself to 16k. > > I am experimenting with V2 version of undercommit improvement(this) patch > series, But I think if you wish to go for increase of > default ple_window, then we would have to measure the benefit of patches > when ple_window = 16k. > > I can respin the whole series including this default ple_window change. > > I also have the perf kvm top result for both ebizzy and kernbench. > I think they are in expected lines now. > > Improvements > ================ > > 16 core PLE machine with 16 vcpu guest > > base = 3.6.0-rc5 + ple handler optimization patches > base_pleopt_16k = base + ple_window = 16k > base_pleopt_32k = base + ple_window = 32k > base_pleopt_nople = base + ple_gap = 0 > kernbench, hackbench, sysbench (time in sec lower is better) > ebizzy (rec/sec higher is better) > > % improvements w.r.t base (ple_window = 4k) > ---------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ > |base_pleopt_16k| base_pleopt_32k | base_pleopt_nople | > ---------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ > kernbench_1x | 0.42371 | 1.15164 | 0.09320 | > kernbench_2x | -1.40981 | -17.48282 | -570.77053 | > ---------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ > sysbench_1x | -0.92367 | 0.24241 | -0.27027 | > sysbench_2x | -2.22706 |-0.30896 | -1.27573 | > sysbench_3x | -0.75509 | 0.09444 | -2.97756 | > ---------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ > ebizzy_1x | 54.99976 | 67.29460 | 74.14076 | > ebizzy_2x | -8.83386 |-27.38403 | -96.22066 | > ---------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ > > perf kvm top observation for kernbench and ebizzy (nople, 4k, 32k window) > ======================================================================== Is the perf data for 1x overcommit? > pleopt ple_gap=0 > -------------------- > ebizzy : 18131 records/s > 63.78% [guest.kernel] [g] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > 5.65% [guest.kernel] [g] smp_call_function_many > 3.12% [guest.kernel] [g] clear_page > 3.02% [guest.kernel] [g] down_read_trylock > 1.85% [guest.kernel] [g] async_page_fault > 1.81% [guest.kernel] [g] up_read > 1.76% [guest.kernel] [g] native_apic_mem_write > 1.70% [guest.kernel] [g] find_vma Does 'perf kvm top' not give host samples at the same time? Would be nice to see the host overhead as a function of varying ple window. I would expect that to be the major difference between 4/16/32k window sizes. A big concern I have (if this is 1x overcommit) for ebizzy is that it has just terrible scalability to begin with. I do not think we should try to optimize such a bad workload. > kernbench :Elapsed Time 29.4933 (27.6007) > 5.72% [guest.kernel] [g] async_page_fault > 3.48% [guest.kernel] [g] pvclock_clocksource_read > 2.68% [guest.kernel] [g] copy_user_generic_unrolled > 2.58% [guest.kernel] [g] clear_page > 2.09% [guest.kernel] [g] page_cache_get_speculative > 2.00% [guest.kernel] [g] do_raw_spin_lock > 1.78% [guest.kernel] [g] unmap_single_vma > 1.74% [guest.kernel] [g] kmem_cache_alloc > > pleopt ple_window = 4k > --------------------------- > ebizzy: 10176 records/s > 69.17% [guest.kernel] [g] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > 3.34% [guest.kernel] [g] clear_page > 2.16% [guest.kernel] [g] down_read_trylock > 1.94% [guest.kernel] [g] async_page_fault > 1.89% [guest.kernel] [g] native_apic_mem_write > 1.63% [guest.kernel] [g] smp_call_function_many > 1.58% [guest.kernel] [g] SetPageLRU > 1.37% [guest.kernel] [g] up_read > 1.01% [guest.kernel] [g] find_vma > > > kernbench: 29.9533 > nts: 240K cycles > 6.04% [guest.kernel] [g] async_page_fault > 4.17% [guest.kernel] [g] pvclock_clocksource_read > 3.28% [guest.kernel] [g] clear_page > 2.57% [guest.kernel] [g] copy_user_generic_unrolled > 2.30% [guest.kernel] [g] do_raw_spin_lock > 2.13% [guest.kernel] [g] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > 1.93% [guest.kernel] [g] page_cache_get_speculative > 1.92% [guest.kernel] [g] unmap_single_vma > 1.77% [guest.kernel] [g] kmem_cache_alloc > 1.61% [guest.kernel] [g] __d_lookup_rcu > 1.19% [guest.kernel] [g] find_vma > 1.19% [guest.kernel] [g] __list_del_entry > > > pleopt: ple_window=16k > ------------------------- > ebizzy: 16990 > 62.35% [guest.kernel] [g] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > 5.22% [guest.kernel] [g] smp_call_function_many > 3.57% [guest.kernel] [g] down_read_trylock > 3.20% [guest.kernel] [g] clear_page > 2.16% [guest.kernel] [g] up_read > 1.89% [guest.kernel] [g] find_vma > 1.86% [guest.kernel] [g] async_page_fault > 1.81% [guest.kernel] [g] native_apic_mem_write > > kernbench: 28.5 > 6.24% [guest.kernel] [g] async_page_fault > 4.16% [guest.kernel] [g] pvclock_clocksource_read > 3.33% [guest.kernel] [g] clear_page > 2.50% [guest.kernel] [g] copy_user_generic_unrolled > 2.08% [guest.kernel] [g] do_raw_spin_lock > 1.98% [guest.kernel] [g] unmap_single_vma > 1.89% [guest.kernel] [g] kmem_cache_alloc > 1.82% [guest.kernel] [g] page_cache_get_speculative > 1.46% [guest.kernel] [g] __d_lookup_rcu > 1.42% [guest.kernel] [g] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > 1.15% [guest.kernel] [g] __list_del_entry > 1.10% [guest.kernel] [g] find_vma > > > > Detailed result for the run > ============================= > patched = base_pleopt_16k > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > kernbench > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > base stddev patched stdev %improve > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > 1x 30.0440 1.1896 29.9167 1.6755 0.42371 > 2x 62.0083 3.4884 62.8825 2.5509 -1.40981 > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > sysbench > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > 1x 7.1779 0.0577 7.2442 0.0479 -0.92367 > 2x 15.5362 0.3370 15.8822 0.3591 -2.22706 > 3x 23.8249 0.1513 24.0048 0.1844 -0.75509 > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > ebizzy > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > 1x 10358.0000 442.6598 16054.8750 252.5088 54.99976 > 2x 2705.5000 130.0286 2466.5000 120.0024 -8.83386 > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > > patched = base_pleopt_32k > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > kernbench > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > base stddev patched stdev %improve > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > 1x 30.0440 1.1896 29.6980 0.6760 1.15164 > 2x 62.0083 3.4884 72.8491 4.4616 -17.48282 > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > sysbench > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > 1x 7.1779 0.0577 7.1605 0.0447 0.24241 > 2x 15.5362 0.3370 15.5842 0.1731 -0.30896 > 3x 23.8249 0.1513 23.8024 0.2342 0.09444 > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > ebizzy > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > 1x 10358.0000 442.6598 17328.3750 281.4569 67.29460 > 2x 2705.5000 130.0286 1964.6250 143.0793 -27.38403 > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > > patched = base_pleopt_nople > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > kernbench > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > base stddev patched stdev %improve > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > 1x 30.0440 1.1896 30.0160 0.7523 0.09320 > 2x 62.0083 3.4884 415.9334 189.9901 -570.77053 > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > sysbench > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > 1x 7.1779 0.0577 7.1973 0.0354 -0.27027 > 2x 15.5362 0.3370 15.7344 0.2315 -1.27573 > 3x 23.8249 0.1513 24.5343 0.3437 -2.97756 > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > ebizzy > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > 1x 10358.0000 442.6598 18037.5000 315.2074 74.14076 > 2x 2705.5000 130.0286 102.2500 104.3521 -96.22066 > +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+ > -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists