[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: unixbench context switch perfomance & cpu topology
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 19:47 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Hi all,
> We can observe unixbench context switch performance is heavily
> influenced by cpu topology which is exposed to the guest. the score is
> posted below, bigger is better, both the guest and the host kernel are
> 3.15-rc3(we can also reproduce against centos 7.4 693 guest/host), LLC
> is exposed to the guest, kvm adaptive halt-polling is default enabled,
> then start a guest w/ 8 logical cpus.
> unixbench context switch
> -smp 8, sockets=8, cores=1, threads=1 382036
> -smp 8, sockets=4, cores=2, threads=1 132480
> -smp 8, sockets=2, cores=4, threads=1 128032
> -smp 8, sockets=2, cores=2, threads=2 131767
> -smp 8, sockets=1, cores=4, threads=2 132742
> -smp 8, sockets=1, cores=4, threads=2 (guest w/ nohz=off idle=poll) 331471
> I can observe there are a lot of reschedule IPIs sent from one vCPU to
> another vCPU, the context switch workload switches between running and
> idle frequently which results in HLT instruction in the idle path, I
> use idle=poll to avoid vmexit due to HLT and to avoid reschedule IPIs
> since idle task checks TIF_NEED_RESCHED flags in a loop, nohz=off can
> stop to program lapic timer/other nohz stuffs. Any idea why sockets=8
> can get best performance?

Probably because with that topology, there is no shared llc, thus no
cross-core scheduling, micro-benchmark waker/wakee are stacked.  If
your benchmark does nothing but schedule, stacking makes beautiful (but
utterly meaningless) numbers.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-22 13:09    [W:0.056 / U:2.376 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site