Re: VM performance issue in KVM guests.

[Avi Kivity]

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.
> >
> > When vcpus are not pinned and affine wakeups are enabled there is a 0%
> > chance that vcpus will be co-scheduled.
> >
> > Keeping both vcpus on the same core actually makes sense since they
> > can communicate through the local cache faster than across cores.
> > What we need is to make sure that they don't spin.
> >
> > Windows 2008 can report spinlock spinning through a hypercall.  Can
> > you hook to that interface and see if it happens regularly?
> > Altenatively use a PLE capable host and trace the kvm_vcpu_on_spin()
> > function.
> >      
> We only tried windows 2003 for the experiments, and have no data related to windows 2008.
> But maybe we can have  a try later.  Anyway, the key point is we have to enhance the scheduler to let it
> Know which threads are vcpu threads to avoid perf loss in this case.
>    

I have two worries about this approach:

1.  Affine wakeups were introduced for a reason; if we disable them 
(even just for vcpus), we lost something.  Maybe we can tune the 
mechanism not to fail, instead of disabling it.

2.  Affine wakeups are a scheduler internal detail.  How do we explain 
what it does?  the scheduler may not have affine wakeups in a few years, 
yet we'll have an ABI to disable them.

--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

--
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/