Re: [PATCH RFC V4 0/5] kvm : Paravirt-spinlock support for KVM guests
From: Raghavendra K T <hidden>
Date: 2012-01-17 17:27:58
Also in:
kvm, xen-devel
On 01/17/2012 12:12 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 16.01.2012, at 19:38, Raghavendra K T wrote:quoted
On 01/16/2012 07:53 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:quoted
On 16.01.2012, at 15:20, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:quoted
* Alexander Graf[off-list ref] [2012-01-16 04:57:45]:quoted
Speaking of which - have you benchmarked performance degradation of pv ticket locks on bare metal?You mean, run kernel on bare metal with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS enabled and compare how it performs with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS disabled for some workload(s)?Yupquoted
In some sense, the 1x overcommitcase results posted does measure the overhead of (pv-)spinlocks no? We don't see any overhead in that case for atleast kernbench ..quoted
Result for Non PLE machine : ============================[snip]quoted
Kernbench: BASE BASE+patchWhat is BASE really? Is BASE already with the PV spinlocks enabled? I'm having a hard time understanding which tree you're working against, since the prerequisites aren't upstream yet. AlexSorry for confusion, I think I was little imprecise on the BASE. The BASE is pre 3.2.0 + Jeremy's following patches: xadd (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/4/328) x86/ticketlocklock (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/12/496). So this would have ticketlock cleanups from Jeremy and CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=y BASE+patch = pre 3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches + above V5 PV spinlock series and CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=y In both the cases CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=y. So let, A. pre-3.2.0 with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = n B. pre-3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = n C. pre-3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = y D. pre-3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches + V5 patches with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = n E. pre-3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches + V5 patches with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = y is it performance of A vs E ? (currently C vs E)Since D and E only matter with KVM in use, yes, I'm mostly interested in A, B and C :). Alex
setup : Native: IBM xSeries with Intel(R) Xeon(R) x5570 2.93GHz CPU with 8 core , 64GB RAM, (16 cpu online) Guest : Single guest with 8 VCPU 4GB Ram. benchmark : kernbench -f -H -M -o 20 Here is the result : Native Run ============ case A case B %improvement case C %improvement 56.1917 (2.57125) 56.035 (2.02439) 0.278867 56.27 (2.40401) -0.139344 Guest Run ============ case A case B %improvement case C %improvement 166.999 (15.7613) 161.876 (14.4874) 3.06768 161.24 (12.6497) 3.44852 We do not see much overhead in native run with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = y