[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090120184249.GB5048@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:42:49 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Kevin Shanahan <kmshanah@...b.org.au>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [Bug #12465] KVM guests stalling on 2.6.28 (bisected)
* Kevin Shanahan <kmshanah@...b.org.au> wrote:
> Running the ping test with without apache2 running in the guest:
>
> --- hermes-old.wumi.org.au ping statistics ---
> 900 packets transmitted, 900 received, 0% packet loss, time 902740ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.568/3.745/272.558/16.990 ms
>
> And with apache2 running:
>
> --- hermes-old.wumi.org.au ping statistics ---
> 900 packets transmitted, 900 received, 0% packet loss, time 902758ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.625/25.634/852.739/76.586 ms
>
> In both cases it's quite variable, but the max latency is still not as
> bad as when running with the irq chip enabled.
So the worst-case ping latency is more than 10 times lower?
I'd say this points in the direction of some sort of KVM-internal
wakeup/signalling latency that happens if KVM does not deschedule. For
example it could be a bug like this: if a guest image runs at 100% CPU
time for a long time, IRQ injections might not propagate up until the
preemption callbacks run. (but i'm just speculating here)
Ingo
--
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