Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler

[Avi Kivity]

On 07/11/2012 05:01 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 07/11/2012 07:29 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> On 07/11/2012 02:30 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 07/10/2012 12:47 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For the cpu threads in the host that are actually active (in this case
>>>> 1/2 of them), ~50% of their time is in kernel and ~43% in guest. This
>>>> is for a no-IO workload, so that's just incredible to see so much cpu
>>>> wasted. I feel that 2 important areas to tackle are a more scalable
>>>> yield_to() and reducing the number of pause exits itself (hopefully by
>>>> just tuning ple_window for the latter).
>>>
>>> One thing we can do is autotune ple_window. If a ple exit fails to wake
>>> anybody (because all vcpus are either running, sleeping, or in ple
>>> exits) then we deduce we are not overcommitted and we can increase the
>>> ple window. There's the question of how to decrease it again though.
>>>
>>
>> I see some problem here, If I interpret situation correctly. What
>> happens if we have two guests with one VM having no over-commit and
>> other with high over-commit. (except when we have gang scheduling).
>>
> Sorry, I meant less load and high load inside the guest.
> 
>> Rather we should have something tied to VM rather than rigid PLE
>> window.

The problem occurs even with no overcommit at all.  One vcpu is in a
legitimately long pause loop.  All those exits accomplish nothing, since
all vcpus are scheduled.  Better to let it spin in guest mode.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function


--
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/