lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v11 0/6] mm / virtio: Provide support for unused page reporting
From
Date

On 10/1/19 4:25 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 15:16 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>> On 10/1/19 12:21 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 17:35 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 01.10.19 17:29, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>>>> As far as possible regressions I have focused on cases where performing
>>>>> the hinting would be non-optimal, such as cases where the code isn't
>>>>> needed as memory is not over-committed, or the functionality is not in
>>>>> use. I have been using the will-it-scale/page_fault1 test running with 16
>>>>> vcpus and have modified it to use Transparent Huge Pages. With this I see
>>>>> almost no difference with the patches applied and the feature disabled.
>>>>> Likewise I see almost no difference with the feature enabled, but the
>>>>> madvise disabled in the hypervisor due to a device being assigned. With
>>>>> the feature fully enabled in both guest and hypervisor I see a regression
>>>>> between -1.86% and -8.84% versus the baseline. I found that most of the
>>>>> overhead was due to the page faulting/zeroing that comes as a result of
>>>>> the pages having been evicted from the guest.
>>>> I think Michal asked for a performance comparison against Nitesh's
>>>> approach, to evaluate if keeping the reported state + tracking inside
>>>> the buddy is really worth it. Do you have any such numbers already? (or
>>>> did my tired eyes miss them in this cover letter? :/)
>>>>
>>> I thought what Michal was asking for was what was the benefit of using the
>>> boundary pointer. I added a bit up above and to the description for patch
>>> 3 as on a 32G VM it adds up to about a 18% difference without factoring in
>>> the page faulting and zeroing logic that occurs when we actually do the
>>> madvise.
>>>
>>> Do we have a working patch set for Nitesh's code? The last time I tried
>>> running his patch set I ran into issues with kernel panics. If we have a
>>> known working/stable patch set I can give it a try.
>> Did you try the v12 patch-set [1]?
>> I remember that you reported the CPU stall issue, which I fixed in the v12.
>>
>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/12/593
>>
>>> - Alex
>>>
> I haven't tested it. I will pull the patches and give it a try. It works
> with the same QEMU changes that mine does right? If so we should be able
> to get an apples-to-apples comparison.

Yes.

>
> Also, instead of providing lkml.org links to your patches in the future it
> might be better to provide a link to the lore.kernel.org version of the
> thread. So for example the v12 set would be:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190812131235.27244-1-nitesh@redhat.com/

I see, I will keep that in mind. Thanks for pointing this out.

>
> The advantage is you can just look up the message ID in your own inbox to
> figure out the link, and it provides raw access to the email if needed.
>
> Thanks.
>
> - Alex
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
--
Thanks
Nitesh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-02 16:43    [W:0.167 / U:9.676 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site