linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kvm: handle last_boosted

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]

Message-ID: <1341499546.20070.21.camel@atheurer-zpro>
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2012 09:45:46 -0500
From:	Andrew Theurer <habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Vinod, Chegu" <chegu_vinod@...com>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Srikar <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: handle last_boosted_vcpu = 0 case

On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 10:49 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 06/28/2012 06:55 PM, Vinod, Chegu wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am just catching up on this email thread...
> >
> > Perhaps one of you may be able to help answer this query.. preferably along with some data.  [BTW, I do understand the basic intent behind PLE in a typical [sweet spot] use case where there is over subscription etc. and the need to optimize the PLE handler in the host etc. ]
> >
> > In a use case where the host has fewer but much larger guests (say 40VCPUs and higher) and there is no over subscription (i.e. # of vcpus across guests<= physical cpus in the host  and perhaps each guest has their vcpu's pinned to specific physical cpus for other reasons), I would like to understand if/how  the PLE really helps ?  For these use cases would it be ok to turn PLE off (ple_gap=0) since is no real need to take an exit and find some other VCPU to yield to ?
> 
> Yes, that should be ok.
> 
> On a related note, I wonder if we should increase the ple_gap
> significantly.
> 
> After all, 4096 cycles of spinning is not that much, when you
> consider how much time is spent doing the subsequent vmexit,
> scanning the other VCPU's status (200 cycles per cache miss),
> deciding what to do, maybe poking another CPU, and eventually
> a vmenter.
> 
> A factor 4 increase in ple_gap might be what it takes to
> get the amount of time spent spinning equal to the amount of
> time spent on the host side doing KVM stuff...

I was recently thinking the same thing as I have observed over 180,000
exits/sec from a 40-way VM on a 80-way host, where there should be no
cpu overcommit.  Also, the number of directed yields for this was only
1800/sec, so we have a 1% usefulness for our exits.  I am wondering if
the ple_window should be similar to the host scheduler task switching
granularity, and not what we think a typical max cycles should be for
holding a lock.

BTW, I have a patch to add a couple PLE stats to kvmstat which I will
send out shortly.

-Andrew




--
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/