linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler

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: <4FFD86CE.9040501@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:29:42 +0530
From:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC:	habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	S390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	Carsten Otte <cotte@...ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 <x86@...nel.org>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, linux390@...ibm.com,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler

On 07/11/2012 02:30 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/10/2012 12:47 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
>>
>> For the cpu threads in the host that are actually active (in this case
>> 1/2 of them), ~50% of their time is in kernel and ~43% in guest.  This
>> is for a no-IO workload, so that's just incredible to see so much cpu
>> wasted.  I feel that 2 important areas to tackle are a more scalable
>> yield_to() and reducing the number of pause exits itself (hopefully by
>> just tuning ple_window for the latter).
>
> One thing we can do is autotune ple_window.  If a ple exit fails to wake
> anybody (because all vcpus are either running, sleeping, or in ple
> exits) then we deduce we are not overcommitted and we can increase the
> ple window.  There's the question of how to decrease it again though.
>

I see some problem here, If I interpret situation correctly. What
happens if we have two guests with one VM having no over-commit and 
other with high over-commit. (except when we have gang scheduling).

Rather we should have something tied to VM rather than rigid PLE
window.

--
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/