[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] Performance difference between Xen versions


  • To: Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:58:55 +0100
  • Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 08:01:07 -0700
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=GNExBB/zJ2qnc8cL5Pjoqu5kwA6DL+HA+A/grHO3BKDZ7EwTPWfPSgwk6igxH0l78H 4g1GWg8VZ9WN2YNw41DOrRze1fnutMpazDVcrBCGmgVDkjT1RTAfVNgOfsCTcWUSVaXA nmzJQi9xNHzIwO+Q319GPfXtuSJDki/DgUfmo=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AcwGffW3XWrLXuHIu026yA8vF9Oomw==
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Performance difference between Xen versions

On 29/04/2011 14:35, "Juergen Gross" <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 04/29/11 15:28, Keir Fraser wrote:
>> Are you sure TSC runs at the same rate in the guest on both hypervisor
>> versions? Xen 4.0 might trap and emulate a more consistent but slower rate
>> TSC by default. 'tsc_mode=2' in your domain config file on 4.0 might be a
>> quick fix.
> Already done :-), so yes, I am sure the tsc rate is the same. The debug key
> 's' (softTSC stats) shows that no tsc is emulated.
> 
> BTW: different tsc rate is improbable as the memory access loop shows
> nearly the same tsc difference...

Then I'm not sure. Maybe something got added to the VMEXIT/VMENTRY path that
is unexpectedly slow. You'll have to do a bit of digging.

 -- Keir

> Juergen
> 
>>   -- Keir
>> 
>> On 29/04/2011 13:32, "Juergen Gross"<juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> comparing performance of different Xen versions with BS2000 as HVM guest
>>> showed some weird data I'd like to understand.
>>> 
>>> All measurements were done on an Intel Xeon E7220 box. We used a disk-
>>> benchmark and found the cpu utilization was much higher with Xen 4.0
>>> compared
>>> to Xen 3.3. I did some more investigation and narrowed things down to calls
>>> of
>>> the hypervisor (implicit or explicit).
>>> 
>>> Following is a table with timing data for different low-level functions, all
>>> timing values are tsc ticks obtained via rdtsc:
>>> 
>>> Xen 3.3     Xen 4.0      Function
>>>         88        165      just the measurement overhead
>>>        176        330      rdtsc-instruction + cli/sti
>>>       5896      11044      lapic timer query
>>>       7381      13519      setting lapic timer
>>>       4653       8987      reload of cr3
>>>       3124       5709      invlpg instruction
>>>     792253     792264      wbinvd instruction
>>>        748       1375      int + iret
>>>       5203       9317      hypervisor yield call
>>> 12598102   12597882      memory access loop
>>> 
>>> All operations involving the hypervisor take nearly twice the time on 4.0.
>>> Operations not involving the hypervisor (wbinvd and memory access loop) are
>>> the same on both systems (this rules out the possibility of different rdtsc
>>> behavior).
>>> 
>>> Is there any easy explanation for this? Both Xen versions are from SLES
>>> (SLES11 or SLES11 SP1).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Juergen



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


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.