WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [Patch 0 of 2]: PV-domain SMP performance

To: Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [Patch 0 of 2]: PV-domain SMP performance
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:38:34 +0000
Cc:
Delivery-date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:38:49 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4948EEE6.3020606@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AclgRF/qMWMebIFlIE6caWP6QGCB8A==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [Patch 0 of 2]: PV-domain SMP performance
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.14.0.081024
On 17/12/2008 12:21, "Juergen Gross" <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> This result was achieved by avoiding descheduling of a vcpu only when irqs
> are blocked. Even better results might be possible with some fine tuning
> (e.g. instrumenting bh_enable/bh_disable).
> I think system time has dropped remarkably!

It's nice, but it'd be more compelling if a win was shown on a real
benchmark. Under normal workloads there is actually little lock contention
in the Linux kernel, and hence I think scope for wins are limited.

Also, pv_ops Linux already has some extra smartness in its spinlock
implementation. A spinner will sleep after some time, making it more likely
that the lock holder will run (who then wakes the sleeper when the lock is
released). You'd need to compare with that approach (which required no extra
hypervisor interfaces).

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel