[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] PV-vNUMA issue: topology is misinterpreted by the guest
On 07/28/2015 06:17 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote: On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 17:11 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:On 07/28/2015 06:29 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:I'll make some performance tests on a big machine (4 sockets, 60 cores, 120 threads) regarding topology information: - bare metal - "random" topology (like today) - "simple" topology (all vcpus regarded as equal) - "real" topology with all vcpus pinned This should show: - how intrusive would the topology patch(es) be? - what is the performance impact of a "wrong" scheduling data baseOn the above box I used a pvops kernel 4.2-rc4 plus a rather small patch (see attachment). I did 5 kernel builds in each environment: make clean time make -j 120Right. If you have time, can you try '-j60' and '-j30' (maybe even -j45 and -j15, if you've got _a_lot_ of time! :-)). The test machine can do this without me watching, so I've just started the first configuration... I'm asking this because, with hyperthreading involved, I've sometimes seen things being the worse when *not* (over)saturating the CPU capacity. Hmm, oversaturation shouldn't happen here. I've added -j 240 to let it happen. ... So, basically, as far as Dom0 on my test box is concerned, "random" actually matches the host topology. Okay, have to check that on my box. I think I'll have another try with a domU. This could be much more "random" than dom0. Sure, without pinning, this looks equally wrong, as Xen's scheduler can well execute, say, vcpu 0 and vcpu 4, which are not siblings, on the same core. But then again, if the load is small, it just won't happen (e.g., if there are only those two busy vcpus, Xen will send them on !siblings core), while if it's too hugh, it won't matter... :-/ _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |