[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E0B1A75.4070705@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:28:37 +0800
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 19/22] KVM: MMU: lockless walking shadow page table
On 06/29/2011 08:18 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/29/2011 02:50 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I think we should do this unconditionally. The cost of ping-ponging the shared cache line containing reader_counter will increase with large smp counts. On the other hand, zap_page is very rare, so it can be a little slower. Also, less code paths = easier to understand.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> On soft mmu, zap_page is very frequently, it can cause performance regression in my test.
>> >
>> > Any idea what the cause of the regression is? It seems to me that simply deferring freeing shouldn't have a large impact.
>> >
>>
>> I guess it is because the page is freed too frequently, i have done the test, it shows
>> about 3219 pages is freed per second
>>
>> Kernbench performance comparing:
>>
>> the origin way: 3m27.723
>> free all shadow page in rcu context: 3m30.519
>
> I don't recall seeing such a high free rate. Who is doing all this zapping?
>
> You may be able to find out with the function tracer + call graph.
>
I looked into it before, it is caused by "write flood" detected, i also noticed
some pages are zapped and allocation again and again, maybe we need to improve
the algorithm of detecting "write flood".
--
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