Message-ID: <20130626113744.GA6300@hawk.usersys.redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:37:45 +0200
From:	Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
To:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, gleb@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	jeremy@...p.org, x86@...nel.org, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
	hpa@...or.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, peterz@...radead.org,
	mtosatti@...hat.com, stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com,
	andi@...stfloor.org, attilio.rao@...rix.com, ouyang@...pitt.edu,
	gregkh@...e.de, agraf@...e.de, chegu_vinod@...com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, avi.kivity@...il.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stephan.diestelhorst@....com,
	riel@...hat.com, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V9 0/19] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
> >On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
> >>with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series provides
> >>implementation for both Xen and KVM.
> >>
> >>Changes in V9:
> >>- Changed spin_threshold to 32k to avoid excess halt exits that are
> >>    causing undercommit degradation (after PLE handler improvement).
> >>- Added  kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic (suggested by Gleb)
> >>- Optimized halt exit path to use PLE handler
> >>
> >>V8 of PVspinlock was posted last year. After Avi's suggestions to look
> >>at PLE handler's improvements, various optimizations in PLE handling
> >>have been tried.
> >
> >Sorry for not posting this sooner.  I have tested the v9 pv-ticketlock
> >patches in 1x and 2x over-commit with 10-vcpu and 20-vcpu VMs.  I have
> >tested these patches with and without PLE, as PLE is still not scalable
> >with large VMs.
> >
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Thanks for testing.
> 
> >System: x3850X5, 40 cores, 80 threads
> >
> >
> >1x over-commit with 10-vCPU VMs (8 VMs) all running dbench:
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> >						Total
> >Configuration				Throughput(MB/s)	Notes
> >
> >3.10-default-ple_on			22945			5% CPU in host kernel, 2% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-default-ple_off			23184			5% CPU in host kernel, 2% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-pvticket-ple_on			22895			5% CPU in host kernel, 2% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-pvticket-ple_off			23051			5% CPU in host kernel, 2% spin_lock in guests
> >[all 1x results look good here]
> 
> Yes. The 1x results look too close
> 
> >
> >
> >2x over-commit with 10-vCPU VMs (16 VMs) all running dbench:
> >-----------------------------------------------------------
> >						Total
> >Configuration				Throughput		Notes
> >
> >3.10-default-ple_on			 6287			55% CPU  host kernel, 17% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-default-ple_off			 1849			2% CPU in host kernel, 95% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-pvticket-ple_on			 6691			50% CPU in host kernel, 15% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-pvticket-ple_off			16464			8% CPU in host kernel, 33% spin_lock in guests
> 
> I see 6.426% improvement with ple_on
> and 161.87% improvement with ple_off. I think this is a very good sign
>  for the patches
> 
> >[PLE hinders pv-ticket improvements, but even with PLE off,
> >  we still off from ideal throughput (somewhere >20000)]
> >
> 
> Okay, The ideal throughput you are referring is getting around atleast
> 80% of 1x throughput for over-commit. Yes we are still far away from
> there.
> 
> >
> >1x over-commit with 20-vCPU VMs (4 VMs) all running dbench:
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> >						Total
> >Configuration				Throughput		Notes
> >
> >3.10-default-ple_on			22736			6% CPU in host kernel, 3% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-default-ple_off			23377			5% CPU in host kernel, 3% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-pvticket-ple_on			22471			6% CPU in host kernel, 3% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-pvticket-ple_off			23445			5% CPU in host kernel, 3% spin_lock in guests
> >[1x looking fine here]
> >
> 
> I see ple_off is little better here.
> 
> >
> >2x over-commit with 20-vCPU VMs (8 VMs) all running dbench:
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> >						Total
> >Configuration				Throughput		Notes
> >
> >3.10-default-ple_on			 1965			70% CPU in host kernel, 34% spin_lock in guests		
> >3.10-default-ple_off			  226			2% CPU in host kernel, 94% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-pvticket-ple_on			 1942			70% CPU in host kernel, 35% spin_lock in guests
> >3.10-pvticket-ple_off			 8003			11% CPU in host kernel, 70% spin_lock in guests
> >[quite bad all around, but pv-tickets with PLE off the best so far.
> >  Still quite a bit off from ideal throughput]
> 
> This is again a remarkable improvement (307%).
> This motivates me to add a patch to disable ple when pvspinlock is on.
> probably we can add a hypercall that disables ple in kvm init patch.
> but only problem I see is what if the guests are mixed.
> 
>  (i.e one guest has pvspinlock support but other does not. Host
> supports pv)

How about reintroducing the idea to create per-kvm ple_gap,ple_window
state. We were headed down that road when considering a dynamic window at
one point. Then you can just set a single guest's ple_gap to zero, which
would lead to PLE being disabled for that guest. We could also revisit
the dynamic window then.

drew

> 
> /me thinks
> 
> >
> >In summary, I would state that the pv-ticket is an overall win, but the
> >current PLE handler tends to "get in the way" on these larger guests.
> >
> >-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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists