linux-kernel - Re: unixbench context switch perfomance & cpu topology

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: <CANRm+Cws7-dfA2R47FOTRrJzi1YJDCBMSv92FqB4j76CB54QmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:33:31 +0800
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: unixbench context switch perfomance & cpu topology

2018-01-22 20:53 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 07:47:45PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We can observe unixbench context switch performance is heavily
>> influenced by cpu topology which is exposed to the guest. the score is
>> posted below, bigger is better, both the guest and the host kernel are
>> 3.15-rc3(we can also reproduce against centos 7.4 693 guest/host), LLC
>> is exposed to the guest, kvm adaptive halt-polling is default enabled,
>> then start a guest w/ 8 logical cpus.
>>
>>
>>
>> unixbench context switch
>> -smp 8, sockets=8, cores=1, threads=1    382036
>> -smp 8, sockets=4, cores=2, threads=1    132480
>> -smp 8, sockets=2, cores=4, threads=1    128032
>> -smp 8, sockets=2, cores=2, threads=2    131767
>> -smp 8, sockets=1, cores=4, threads=2    132742
>> -smp 8, sockets=1, cores=4, threads=2 (guest w/ nohz=off idle=poll)    331471
>>
>> I can observe there are a lot of reschedule IPIs sent from one vCPU to
>> another vCPU, the context switch workload switches between running and
>> idle frequently which results in HLT instruction in the idle path, I
>> use idle=poll to avoid vmexit due to HLT and to avoid reschedule IPIs
>> since idle task checks TIF_NEED_RESCHED flags in a loop, nohz=off can
>> stop to program lapic timer/other nohz stuffs. Any idea why sockets=8
>> can get best performance?
>
> I suspect because we load-balance less agressively across nodes than we
> do within a cache domain.

It is true. after taking a more closer look by kernelshark, the
context1 in the guest will be migrated to another logical cpu after
several milliseconds for sockets=1, cores=4, threads=2,  however, it
can keep on one logical cpu around several seconds for sockets=8,
cores=1, threads=1 before migrating to another one.

>
> Fix you benchmark to pin itself to a single CPU, that's the only
> sensible way to obtain this number in any case.

Yeah, this setup can get a good performance. Actually the two context1
tasks don't stack up on one logical cpu at the most of time which is
observed by kernelshark opposed to Mike's reply. In addition, I can
observe the sum of RESCHED IPIs in the guest for sockets=1, cores=4,
threads=2 is 4.5 times for sockets=8, cores=1, threads=1. Any idea how
this can happen? I suspect the TTWU path selects another idle logical
cpu which results in a RESCHED IPI is avoidless. However, there is
still no benefit for performance after I clear the SD_BALANCE_WAKE for
correlative sched_domains.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li