Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving undercommit,overcommit scenariosin PLE handler

[Raghavendra K T]

On 09/24/2012 07:46 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 07:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 18:59 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > > However Rik had a genuine concern in the cases where runqueue is not
> > > equally distributed and lockholder might actually be on a different run
> > > queue but not running.
> >
> > Load should eventually get distributed equally -- that's what the
> > load-balancer is for -- so this is a temporary situation.
> >
> > We already try and favour the non running vcpu in this case, that's what
> > yield_to_task_fair() is about. If its still not eligible to run, tough
> > luck.
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
> > > Do you think instead of using rq->nr_running, we could get a global
> > > sense of load using avenrun (something like avenrun/num_onlinecpus)
> >
> > To what purpose? Also, global stuff is expensive, so you should try and
> > stay away from it as hard as you possibly can.
>
> Yes, that concern only had made me to fall back to rq->nr_running.
>
> Will come back with the result soon.

Got the result with the patches:
So here is the result,

Tried this on a 32 core ple box with HT disabled. 32 guest vcpus with
1x and 2x overcommits

Base = 3.6.0-rc5 + ple handler optimization patches
A = Base + checking rq_running in vcpu_on_spin() patch
B = Base + checking rq->nr_running in sched/core
C = Base - PLE

---+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |    Ebizzy result (rec/sec higher is better)   |
---+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |    Base   |     A     |      B    |     C     |
---+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
1x | 2374.1250 | 7273.7500 | 5690.8750 |  7364.3750|
2x | 2536.2500 | 2458.5000 | 2426.3750 |    48.5000|
---+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

   % improvements w.r.t BASE
---+------------+------------+------------+
   |      A     |    B       |     C      |
---+------------+------------+------------+
1x | 206.37603  |  139.70410 |  210.19323 |
2x | -3.06555   |  -4.33218  |  -98.08773 |
---+------------+------------+------------+

we are getting the benefit of almost PLE disabled case with this
approach. With patch B, we have dropped a bit in gain.
(because we still would iterate vcpus until we decide to do a directed
yield).





--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/