system than rcu_synchronize_expedited. This might give Paolo a hint
which of the patches is the right way to go.
Hi all,
I've asked Andrew Theurer to run network tests on a 10G connection (TCP
request/response to check for performance, TCP streaming for host CPU
utilization).
I am hoping
On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 15:52 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series provides
implementation for both Xen and KVM.
Changes in V9:
- Changed spin_threshold to 32k to avoid excess
and share
the patches I tried.
-Andrew Theurer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
dbench in tmpfs, which is a
pretty good test for spinlock preempt problems. I had PLE enabled for
the test.
When you re-base your patches I will try it again.
Thanks,
-Andrew Theurer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord
the latest throttled yield_to() patch (the one Vinod tested).
Signed-off-by: Andrew Theurer haban...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
index ecc5543..61d12ea 100644
--- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
+++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
@@ -192,6 +192,7 @@ struct
On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 16:00 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 11/26/2012 07:05 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:37:54PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
From: Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org
In case of undercomitted scenarios, especially in large guests
yield_to
and suggestions.
Link for V1:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/21/168
kernel/sched/core.c | 25 +++--
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 56
++--
2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
-Andrew Theurer
--
To unsubscribe
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 14:00 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/15/2012 08:04 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-15 at 17:40 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/11/2012 01:06 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 23:24 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/10/2012 08:29 AM
On Mon, 2012-10-15 at 17:40 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/11/2012 01:06 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 23:24 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/10/2012 08:29 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 00:21 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
* Avi Kivity
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 23:13 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/10/2012 07:54 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
I ran 'perf sched map' on the dbench workload for medium and large VMs,
and I thought I would share some of the results. I think it helps to
visualize what's going on regarding
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 23:24 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/10/2012 08:29 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 00:21 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
* Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com [2012-10-04 17:00:28]:
On 10/04/2012 03:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 14:41
I ran 'perf sched map' on the dbench workload for medium and large VMs,
and I thought I would share some of the results. I think it helps to
visualize what's going on regarding the yielding.
These files are png bitmaps, generated from processing output from 'perf
sched map' (and perf data
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 00:21 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
* Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com [2012-10-04 17:00:28]:
On 10/04/2012 03:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 14:41 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Again the numbers are ridiculously high for arch_local_irq_restore.
On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 14:41 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/04/2012 12:49 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/03/2012 10:35 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/03/2012 02:22 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
So I think it's worth trying again with ple_window of 2-4.
Hi Avi,
I ran different
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 11:08 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 09/27/2012 05:33 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 09/27/2012 01:23 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
This gives us a good case for tracking preemption on a per-vm basis. As
long as we aren't preempted, we can keep the PLE window high, and
and then others.
Or were you referring to something else?
So looking back at threads/ discussions so far, I am trying to
summarize, the discussions so far. I feel, at least here are the few
potential candidates to go in:
1) Avoiding double runqueue lock overhead (Andrew Theurer
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 11:55 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 09/14/2012 12:30 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
The concern I have is that even though we have gone through changes to
help reduce the candidate vcpus we yield to, we still have a very poor
idea of which vcpu really needs to run
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 17:18 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
* Andrew Theurer haban...@linux.vnet.ibm.com [2012-09-11 13:27:41]:
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 11:38 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 09/11/2012 01:42 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 19:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 11:38 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 09/11/2012 01:42 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 19:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 22:26 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
+static bool __yield_to_candidate(struct task_struct *curr, struct
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 11:38 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 09/11/2012 01:42 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 19:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 22:26 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
+static bool __yield_to_candidate(struct task_struct *curr, struct
On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 14:13 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
signed-off-by: Andrew Theurer haban...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index fbf1fd0..c767915 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -4844,6 +4844,9
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 19:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 22:26 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
+static bool __yield_to_candidate(struct task_struct *curr, struct
task_struct *p)
+{
+ if (!curr-sched_class-yield_to_task)
+ return false;
+
is: given a runqueue, what's the best
way to check if that corresponding phys cpu is not in guest mode?
Here's the changes so far (schedstat changes not included here):
signed-off-by: Andrew Theurer haban...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 23:36 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
CCing PeterZ also.
On 09/07/2012 06:41 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
I have noticed recently that PLE/yield_to() is still not that scalable
for really large guests, sometimes even with no CPU over-commit. I have
a small change
related tests.
Thanks,
-Andrew Theurer
/* pagemapscan-numa.c v0.01
*
* Copyright (c) 2012 IBM
*
* Author: Andrew Theurer
*
* This software is licensed to you under the GNU General Public License,
* version 2 (GPLv2). There is NO WARRANTY for this software, express or
* implied, including
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 17:24 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 07/10/2012 03:17 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 11:50 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Currently Pause Looop Exit (PLE) handler is doing directed yield to a
random VCPU on PL exit. Though we already have filtering
spent in host in the double runqueue lock
for yield_to(), so that's why I still gravitate toward that issue.
-Andrew Theurer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo
On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 15:42 +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 07/06/2012 05:50 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
I, and I expect others, have a keen interest in knowing how often we
exit for PLE, and also how often that includes a yielding to another
vcpu. The following adds two more counters
On Sat, 2012-07-07 at 01:40 +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 07/06/2012 09:22 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 15:42 +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 07/06/2012 05:50 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
I, and I expect others, have a keen interest in knowing how often we
exit for PLE
On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 10:49 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 06/28/2012 06:55 PM, Vinod, Chegu wrote:
Hello,
I am just catching up on this email thread...
Perhaps one of you may be able to help answer this query.. preferably along
with some data. [BTW, I do understand the basic intent
going on.
-Andrew Theurer
Signed-off-by: Andrew Theurer haban...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |2 ++
arch/x86/kvm/svm.c |1 +
arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c |1 +
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c |2 ++
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c |1
, the vcpus could be scheduled on
different nodes.
Someone is working on in-kernel solution. Andrew Theurer has a working
user-space NUMA aware VM balancer, it requires libvirt and cgroups
(which is default for RHEL6 systems).
Interesting, and I found that sched/numa: Introduce
sys_numa_{t,m}bind
on a 16 thread 2S Nehalem-EP host, looped
gettimeofday() calls on all vCPUs)
tsc:.0645 usec per call
kvm-clock: .4222 usec per call (6.54x)
-Andrew Theurer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
On 05/21/2012 03:36 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 03:26:54PM -0500, Andrew Theurer wrote:
Wondering if a user-space gettimofday() for kvm-clock has been
considered before. I am seeing a pretty large difference in
performance between tsc and kvm-clock. I have to assume
,) 2 perftest
[1] 15086
[root@dell06 ~]# kill 15086
[root@dell06 ~]#
[1]+ Terminated ( perf stat -p 7473 -x , ) 2 perftest
[root@dell06 ~]# cat perftest
[root@dell06 ~]#
Any clue?
Can you please try kill -s INT pid
Best Regards
Hailong
-Andrew Theurer
--
To unsubscribe from
On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 13:49 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
On 04/25/11 13:29, Alex Williamson wrote:
So we're effectively getting host-host latency/throughput for the VF,
it's just that in the 82576 implementation of SR-IOV, the VF takes a
latency hit that puts it pretty close to virtio.
On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 13:57 -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 11:07 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
I've finally read this thread... I think we need to get more serious
with our stats gathering to diagnose these kind of performance issues.
This is a start; it should tell us what
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 12:04 +0530, Krishna Kumar wrote:
This patch series is a continuation of an earlier one that
implemented guest MQ TX functionality. This new patchset
implements both RX and TX MQ. Qemu changes are not being
included at this time solely to aid in easier review.
to QEMU that let's us work with existing tooling instead of
inventing new interfaces.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Regards,
Andre.
-Andrew Theurer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 17:03 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/31/2010 03:54 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 16:27 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/23/2010 04:16 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/23/2010 01:59 PM, Marcelo
I am running a windows workload which has 26 windows VMs running many
instances of a J2EE workload. There are 13 pairs of an application
server VM and database server VM. There seem to be quite a bit of
vm_exits, and it looks over a third of them are mmio_exit:
efer_relo 0
exits
On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 16:46 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/26/2009 03:35 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
I just tried testing tip of kvm.git, but unfortunately I think I might
be hitting a different problem, where processes run 100% in kernel
mode. In my case, cpus 9 and 13 were stuck, running
Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
11/01/2009 08:31 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
Here is the code in question:
3ae7: 75 05 jne
3aeevmx_vcpu_run+0x26a
3ae9: 0f 01 c2vmlaunch
3aec: eb 03 jmp
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/30/2009 08:07 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
I have finally bisected and isolated this to the following commit:
ada3fa15057205b7d3f727bba5cd26b5912e350f
http://git.kernel.org/?p=virt/kvm/kvm.git;a=commit;h=ada3fa15057205b7d3f727bba5cd26b5912e350f
Merge branch
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 15:18 -0500, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 02:10 +0900, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/13/2009 11:04 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
Look at the address where vmx_vcpu_run starts, add 0x26d, and show the
surrounding code.
Thinking about it, it probably _is_
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 08:40:26AM +0900, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/17/2009 04:27 AM, Glauber Costa wrote:
This is a patch actually written by Juan, which, according to him,
he plans on posting to qemu.git. Problem is that linux defines
u64 in a way that is type-uncompatible with uint64_t.
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 02:10 +0900, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/13/2009 11:04 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
Look at the address where vmx_vcpu_run starts, add 0x26d, and show the
surrounding code.
Thinking about it, it probably _is_ what you showed, due to module page
alignment. But please
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 08:50 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/12/2009 08:42 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 07:19 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/09/2009 10:04 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
This is on latest master branch on kvm.git and qemu-kvm.git, running
12
On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 07:19 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/09/2009 10:04 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
This is on latest master branch on kvm.git and qemu-kvm.git, running
12 Windows Server2008 VMs, and using oprofile. I ran again without
oprofile and did not get the BUG. I am wondering
This is on latest master branch on kvm.git and qemu-kvm.git, running 12
Windows Server2008 VMs, and using oprofile. I ran again without
oprofile and did not get the BUG. I am wondering if anyone else is
seeing this.
Thanks,
-Andrew
Oct 9 11:55:13 virtvictory-eth0 kernel: BUG: unable to
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 17:19 -0600, Bruce Rogers wrote:
On 9/11/2009 at 3:53 PM, Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:36:10AM -0600, Bruce Rogers wrote:
I am wondering if anyone has investigated how well kvm scales when
supporting many guests, or many vcpus
On Tue, 2009-09-01 at 21:23 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 09/01/2009 09:12 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
Here's a run from branch debugreg with thread debugreg storage +
conditionally reload dr6:
user nice system irq softirq guest idle iowait
5.79 0.009.28 0.08 1.00 20.81
Brian Jackson wrote:
On Friday 04 September 2009 09:48:17 am Andrew Theurer wrote:
snip
Still not idle=poll, it may shave off 0.2%.
Won't this affect SMT in a negative way? (OK, I am not running SMT now,
but eventually we will be) A long time ago, we tested P4's with HT, and
a polling idle
On Tue, 2009-09-01 at 12:47 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 09/01/2009 12:44 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
Instead of saving the debug registers from the processor to a kvm data
structure, rely in the debug registers stored in the thread structure.
This allows us not to save dr6 and dr7.
Reduces
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/27/2009 11:42 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 19:21 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/27/2009 06:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Don't call adjust_vmx_controls() two times for the same control.
It restores options that was dropped earlier
On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 19:21 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/27/2009 06:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Don't call adjust_vmx_controls() two times for the same control.
It restores options that was dropped earlier.
Applied, thanks. Andrew, if you rerun your benchmark atop kvm.git
'next'
I recently gathered some performance data when running Windows Server
2008 VMs, and I wanted to share it here. There are 12 Windows
Server2008 64-bit VMs (1 vcpu, 2 GB) running which handle the concurrent
execution of 6 J2EE type benchmarks. Each benchmark needs a App VM and
a Database VM. The
On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 18:44 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/26/2009 05:57 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
I recently gathered some performance data when running Windows Server
2008 VMs, and I wanted to share it here. There are 12 Windows
Server2008 64-bit VMs (1 vcpu, 2 GB) running which handle
On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 19:26 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/26/2009 07:14 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 18:44 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/26/2009 05:57 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
I recently gathered some performance data when running Windows Server
2008
On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 11:27 -0500, Brian Jackson wrote:
On Wednesday 26 August 2009 11:14:57 am Andrew Theurer wrote:
snip
I/O on the host was not what I would call very high: outbound network
averaged at 163 Mbit/s inbound was 8 Mbit/s, while disk read ops was
243/sec and write
Avi Kivity wrote:
Andrew Theurer wrote:
Is there a virtio_block driver to test?
There is, but it isn't available yet.
OK. Can I assume a better virtio_net driver is in the works as well?
Can we find the root cause of the exits (is there a way to get stack
dump or something that can
I've been looking at how KVM handles windows guests, and I am a little
concerned with the CPU overhead. My test case is as follows:
I am running 4 instances of a J2EE benchmark. Each instance needs one
application server and one DB server. 8 VMs in total are used.
I have the same App and
Avi Kivity wrote:
Andrew Theurer wrote:
I wanted to share some performance data for KVM and Xen. I thought it
would be interesting to share some performance results especially
compared to Xen, using a more complex situation like heterogeneous
server consolidation.
The Workload:
The workload
Avi Kivity wrote:
Andrew Theurer wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
What's the typical I/O load (disk and network bandwidth) while the
tests are running?
This is average thrgoughput:
network:Tx: 79 MB/sec Rx: 5 MB/sec
MB as in Byte or Mb as in bit?
Byte. There are 4 x 1 Gb adapters, each
Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
1) I'm seeing about 2.3% in scheduler functions [that I recognize].
Does that seems a bit excessive?
Yes, it is. If there is a lot of I/O, this might be due to the
thread pool used for I/O.
This is why I wrote the linux-aio
Here are the SMT off results. This workload is designed to not
over-saturate the CPU, so you have to pick a number of server sets to
ensure that. With SMT on, 4 sets was enough for KVM, but 5 was too much
(start seeing response time errors). For SMT off, I tried to size the
load as high as
kvm_apic_has_interrupt
880421 0.1399 librt-2.9.so/lib64/librt-2.9.so
880306 0.1399 vmlinux-2.6.27.19-5-default nf_iterate
-Andrew Theurer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord
Nakajima, Jun wrote:
On 4/29/2009 7:41:50 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
I wanted to share some performance data for KVM and Xen. I thought it
would be interesting to share some performance results especially
compared to Xen, using a more complex situation like heterogeneous
server consolidation
I know there have been a couple other threads here about booting with
if=virtio, but I think this might be a different problem, not sure:
I am using kvm.git (41b76d8d0487c26d6d4d3fe53c1ff59b3236f096)
and qemu-kvm.git (8f7a30dbc40a1d4c09275566f9ed9647ed1ee50f)
and linux 2.6.20-rc3
It appears to
alex wrote:
the following patchs provide an extra control(besides the control of
Linux scheduler) over the execution of vcpu threads.
In this patch, Xen's credit
scheduler(http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/CreditScheduler) is used.
User can use cat and
echo command to view and control a guest
Sheng Yang wrote:
Oops... Thanks very much for reporting! I can't believe we haven't awared of
that...
Could you please try the attached patch? Thanks!
Tested and works great. Thanks!
-Andrew
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
index aba41ae..8d6465b 100644
---
I cannot get EPT support to work on commit:
21f65ab2c582594a69dcb1484afa9f88b3414b4f
KVM: VMX: Zero ept module parameter if ept is not present
I see tons of pf_guest from kvm_stat, where as the previous commit has none.
I am using ept=1 module option for kvm-intel.
This is on Nehalem
Avi Kivity wrote:
KVM currently flushes the tlbs on all cpus when emulating invlpg. This
is because at the time of invlpg we lose track of the page, and leaving
stale tlb entries could cause the guest to access the page when it is
later freed (say after being swapped out).
However we have a
74 matches
Mail list logo
