[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] x86: enable RCU based table free when PARAVIRT
Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On 17/08/17 11:20, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> On x86 software page-table walkers depend on the fact that remote TLB flush >> does an IPI: walk is performed lockless but with interrupts disabled and in >> case the pagetable is freed the freeing CPU will get blocked as remote TLB >> flush is required. On other architecture which don't require an IPI to do >> remote TLB flush we have an RCU-based mechanism (see >> include/asm-generic/tlb.h for more details). >> >> In virtualized environments we may want to override .flush_tlb_others hook >> in pv_mmu_ops and use a hypercall asking the hypervisor to do remote TLB >> flush for us. This breaks the assumption about IPI. Xen PV does this for >> years and the upcoming remote TLB flush for Hyper-V will do it too. This >> is not safe, software pagetable walkers may step on an already freed page. >> >> Solve the issue by enabling RCU-based table free mechanism when PARAVIRT >> is selected in config. Testing with kernbench doesn't show any notable >> performance impact: >> >> 6-CPU host: >> >> Average Half load -j 3 Run (std deviation): >> CURRENT HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE >> ======= =================== >> Elapsed Time 400.498 (0.179679) Elapsed Time 399.909 (0.162853) >> User Time 1098.72 (0.278536) User Time 1097.59 (0.283894) >> System Time 100.301 (0.201629) System Time 99.736 (0.196254) >> Percent CPU 299 (0) Percent CPU 299 (0) >> Context Switches 5774.1 (69.2121) Context Switches 5744.4 (79.4162) >> Sleeps 87621.2 (78.1093) Sleeps 87586.1 (99.7079) >> >> Average Optimal load -j 24 Run (std deviation): >> CURRENT HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE >> ======= =================== >> Elapsed Time 219.03 (0.652534) Elapsed Time 218.959 (0.598674) >> User Time 1119.51 (21.3284) User Time 1118.81 (21.7793) >> System Time 100.499 (0.389308) System Time 99.8335 (0.251423) >> Percent CPU 432.5 (136.974) Percent CPU 432.45 (136.922) >> Context Switches 81827.4 (78029.5) Context Switches 81818.5 (78051) >> Sleeps 97124.8 (9822.4) Sleeps 97207.9 (9955.04) >> >> 6-CPU host: > > I guess this is wrong information ... Oops, is was 16, not 6! :-) > >> >> Average Half load -j 8 Run (std deviation): >> CURRENT HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE >> ======= =================== >> Elapsed Time 213.538 (3.7891) Elapsed Time 212.5 (3.10939) >> User Time 1306.4 (1.83399) User Time 1307.65 (1.01364) >> System Time 194.59 (0.864378) System Time 195.478 (0.794588) >> Percent CPU 702.6 (13.5388) Percent CPU 707 (11.1131) >> Context Switches 21189.2 (1199.4) Context Switches 21288.2 (552.388) >> Sleeps 89390.2 (482.325) Sleeps 89677 (277.06) >> >> Average Optimal load -j 64 Run (std deviation): >> CURRENT HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE >> ======= =================== >> Elapsed Time 137.866 (0.787928) Elapsed Time 138.438 (0.218792) >> User Time 1488.92 (192.399) User Time 1489.92 (192.135) >> System Time 234.981 (42.5806) System Time 236.09 (42.8138) >> Percent CPU 1057.1 (373.826) Percent CPU 1057.1 (369.114) > > ... as I suspect more than 100% usage per cpu are rather unlikely. :-) > >> Context Switches 187514 (175324) Context Switches 187358 (175060) >> Sleeps 112633 (24535.5) Sleeps 111743 (23297.6) >> >> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> > Thanks! -- Vitaly _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |