[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks

On 03/29/2012 03:28 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/28/2012 08:21 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:

         Looks like a good baseline on which to build the KVM
         implementation.  We
         might need some handshake to prevent interference on the host
         side with
         the PLE code.

I think I still missed some point in Avi's comment. I agree that PLE
may be interfering with above patches (resulting in less performance
advantages). but we have not seen performance degradation with the
patches in earlier benchmarks. [ theoretically since patch has very
slight advantage over PLE that atleast it knows who should run next ].

The advantage grows with the vcpu counts and overcommit ratio.  If you
have N vcpus and M:1 overcommit, PLE has to guess from N/M queued vcpus
while your patch knows who to wake up.

Yes. I agree.

So TODO in my list on this is:
1. More analysis of performance on PLE mc.
2. Seeing how to implement handshake to increase performance (if PLE +
patch combination have slight negative effect).

I can think of two options:

I really like below ideas. Thanks for that!.

- from the PLE handler, don't wake up a vcpu that is sleeping because it
is waiting for a kick

How about, adding another pass in the beginning of  kvm_vcpu_on_spin()
to check if any vcpu is already kicked. This would almost result in yield_to(kicked_vcpu). IMO this is also worth trying.

will try above ideas soon.

- look at other sources of pause loops (I guess smp_call_function() is
the significant source) and adjust them to use the same mechanism, and
ask the host to disable PLE exiting.

This can be done incrementally later.

Yes.. this can wait a bit.

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.