[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks
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.

> 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:
- from the PLE handler, don't wake up a vcpu that is sleeping because it
is waiting for a kick
- 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.

> Sorry that, I could not do more analysis on PLE (as promised last time)
> because of machine availability.
> I 'll do some work on this and comeback. But in the meantime, I do not
> see it as blocking for next merge window.

error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-29 12:01    [W:0.104 / U:0.452 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site