[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks
- To: Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:33:49 +0530
- Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>, KVM <kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alan Meadows <alan.meadows@xxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Attilio Rao <attilio.rao@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>, Virtualization <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Xen Devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:05:07 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
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
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
