Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 04 Dec 2012 23:19:19 +0530 | From | Raghavendra K T <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V3 RFC 2/2] kvm: Handle yield_to failure return code for potential undercommit case |
| |
On 12/04/2012 01:26 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: >> On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: >>> >>> Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice. >> >> Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for >> completeness, forgive me :)) >> In moderate overcommits, we can falsely exit from ple handler even when >> we have preempted task of same VM waiting on other cpus. To reduce this >> problem, we try few times before exiting. >> The problem boils down to: >> what is the probability that we exit ple handler even when we have more >> than 1 task in other cpus. Theoretical worst case should be around 1.5x >> overcommit (As also pointed by Andrew Theurer). [But practical >> worstcase may be around 2x,3x overcommits as indicated by the results >> for the patch series] >> >> So if p is the probability of finding rq length one on a particular cpu, >> and if we do n tries, then probability of exiting ple handler is: >> >> p^(n+1) [ because we would have come across one source with rq length >> 1 and n target cpu rqs with length 1 ] >> >> so >> num tries: probability of aborting ple handler (1.5x overcommit) >> 1 1/4 >> 2 1/8 >> 3 1/16 >> >> We can increase this probability with more tries, but the problem is >> the overhead. >> Also, If we have tried three times that means we would have iterated >> over 3 good eligible vcpus along with many non-eligible candidates. In >> worst case if we iterate all the vcpus, we reduce 1x performance and >> overcommit performance get hit. [ as in results ]. >> >> I have tried num_tries = 1,2,3 and n already ( not 4 yet). So I >> concluded 3 is enough. >> >> Infact I have also run kernbench and hackbench which are giving 5-20% >> improvement. >> >> [ As a side note , I also thought how about having num_tries = f(n) = >> ceil ( log(num_online_cpus)/2 ) But I thought calculation is too much >> overhead and also there is no point in probably making it dependent on >> online cpus ] >> >> Please let me know if you are happy with this rationale/ or correct me >> if you foresee some problem. (Infact Avi, Rik's concern about false >> exiting made me arrive at 'try' logic which I did not have earlier). >> >> I am currently trying out the result for 1.5x overcommit will post the >> result. > > Raghavendra > > Makes sense to me. Thanks. >
Hi Marcelo, Thanks for looking into patches.
| |