Re: [PATCH] use unfair spinlock when running on hypervisor.

[Avi Kivity]

On 06/01/2010 08:27 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 07:52:28PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>    
> > We are running everything on NUMA (since all modern machines are now NUMA).
> >   At what scale do the issues become observable?
> >      
> On Intel platforms it's visible starting with 4 sockets.
>    

Can you recommend a benchmark that shows bad behaviour?  I'll run it 
with ticket spinlocks and Gleb's patch.  I have a 4-way Nehalem-EX, 
presumably the huge number of threads will magnify the problem even more 
there.

> > > > I understand that reason and do not propose to get back to old spinlock
> > > > on physical HW! But with virtualization performance hit is unbearable.
> > > >
> > > >          
> > > Extreme unfairness can be unbearable too.
> > >
> > >        
> > Well, the question is what happens first.  In our experience, vcpu
> > overcommit is a lot more painful.  People will never see the NUMA
> > unfairness issue if they can't use kvm due to the vcpu overcommit problem.
> >      
> You really have to address both, if you don't fix them both
> users will eventually into one of them and be unhappy.
>    

That's definitely the long term plan.  I consider Gleb's patch the first 
step.

Do  you have any idea how we can tackle both problems?

--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
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/