Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 03:33:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 11:18 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Certainly that has even greater potential for Linux guests. Note
that we spin on mutexes now, so we need to prevent preemption while
the lock owner
On 04/16/2010 05:27 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
When vcpus are pinned to pcpus, there is a 50% chance that a guest's
vcpus will be co-scheduled and spinlocks will perform will.
When vcpus are not pinned, but affine wakeups are disabled, there is a
33% chance that vcpus will be co-scheduled.
On 04/15/2010 04:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 11:18 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Certainly that has even greater potential for Linux guests. Note that
we spin on mutexes now, so we need to prevent preemption while the lock
owner is running.
either that, or disable
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 09:43 -0700, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 03:33:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 11:18 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Certainly that has even greater potential for Linux guests. Note that
we spin on mutexes now, so we need
On 04/15/2010 07:58 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
mailto:a...@redhat.com wrote:
The current handing of PLE is very suboptimal. With proper
directed yield we should be much better there.
Hi Avi,
By directed
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 11:18 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Certainly that has even greater potential for Linux guests. Note that
we spin on mutexes now, so we need to prevent preemption while the lock
owner is running.
either that, or disable spinning on (para) virt kernels. Para virt
kernels
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 03:33:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 11:18 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Certainly that has even greater potential for Linux guests. Note that
we spin on mutexes now, so we need to prevent preemption while the lock
owner is running.
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/14/2010 06:24 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Spin loops need to be addressed first, they are known to kill
performance in overcommit situations.
Even in overcommit case, if vcpu threads of one qemu are not
scheduled or pulled to the same logical processor, the
On 04/14/2010 06:24 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Spin loops need to be addressed first, they are known to kill
performance in overcommit situations.
Even in overcommit case, if vcpu threads of one qemu are not
scheduled or pulled to the same logical processor, the performance
drop is
On 04/13/2010 03:50 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/12/2010 05:04 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
What was the performance hit? What was your I/O setup (image
format, using aio?)
The issue only happens when vcpu number is over-committed(e.g.
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/13/2010 03:50 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/12/2010 05:04 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
What was the performance hit? What was your I/O setup (image
format, using aio?)
The issue only happens when vcpu number is over-committed(e.g.
On 04/12/2010 05:04 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
What was the performance hit? What was your I/O setup (image format,
using aio?)
The issue only happens when vcpu number is over-committed(e.g. vcpu/pcpu2) and
physical cpus are saturated. For example, when run webbench in windows OS in
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/12/2010 05:04 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
What was the performance hit? What was your I/O setup (image
format, using aio?)
The issue only happens when vcpu number is over-committed(e.g.
vcpu/pcpu2) and physical cpus are saturated. For example, when run
webbench
Avi Kivity wrote:
(copying lkml and some scheduler folk)
On 04/10/2010 11:16 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Hi, all
We are working on the scalability work for KVM guests, and found
one big issue exists in linux scheduler and it may impact guest's
performance and scalability a lot for some
Hi, all
We are working on the scalability work for KVM guests, and found one big
issue exists in linux scheduler and it may impact guest's performance and
scalability a lot for some special workloads running in VM. In the current
Linux scheduler, there are some features to enhance App's
(copying lkml and some scheduler folk)
On 04/10/2010 11:16 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Hi, all
We are working on the scalability work for KVM guests, and found one big
issue exists in linux scheduler and it may impact guest's performance and
scalability a lot for some special workloads
16 matches
Mail list logo
