|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] 4.1.2 very slow without upstream patches, but fast with them, also 4.2 very slow
I ran some new tests... 4.1.2 with different patches, and
4.3-unstable.Some details are below.
At some point in the future, I will try some builds between 4.1 and 4.2
(but at the moment am not sure how with mercurial or what options I have).
4.1.2
short version: dom0 works fine; domu ran only in a few builds and works fine
long version:
I tested 4.1.2 again, with a few selections of patches (first n patches
where n was; 0, 23, 46, 93, 186, 279; there are 373 patches in total).
All of them ran fast in dom0, unlike when I first started this mailing
list thread, and the builds that would run my windows domu ran it fast.
So probably there was something strange with the kernel I had before,
which was probably 3.4.4; now I'm using something like 3.5.x (cmason's
linux-btrfs repository, for-linus branch)
4.3-unstable
short version: dom0 works fine; domu always runs terribly slow (which
leads me to wanting to test what changed between 4.1 and 4.2)
long version:
I pulled the latest source, built it, and dom0 is fast just like with
4.2, but windows hvm domu is still terribly slow, and (with 7 vcpus), it
consumes between 500-650% while booting and a few minutes afterwards.
With 4 CPUs, I would expect between 350-550% from observations with 4.2
but didn't test other cpu counts with 4.3. (another side note, with
4.1.3 which is normally fast, it will run slow like 4.2 and 4.3 if I set
cpus="2,4,6,8" instead of cpus=4)
xentop - 11:32:44 Xen 4.3-unstable
2 domains: 2 running, 0 blocked, 0 paused, 0 crashed, 0 dying, 0 shutdown
Mem: 16757972k total, 16739788k used, 18184k free CPUs: 8 @ 4499MHz
NAME STATE CPU(sec) CPU(%) MEM(k) MEM(%) MAXMEM(k)
MAXMEM(%) VCPUS NETS NETTX(k) NETRX(k) VBDS VBD_OO VBD_RD VBD_WR
VBD_RSECT VBD_WSECT SSID
Domain-0 -----r 784 27.2 12314624 73.5 12582912
75.1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
windowsxp2 -----r 3244 637.1 4197220 25.0 4198400
25.1 7 1 344 56 2 0 14381 6054
651283 122280 0
And then after idling for 10 minutes, it is under 200%
xentop - 11:35:29 Xen 4.3-unstable
2 domains: 1 running, 1 blocked, 0 paused, 0 crashed, 0 dying, 0 shutdown
Mem: 16757972k total, 16739788k used, 18184k free CPUs: 8 @ 4499MHz
NAME STATE CPU(sec) CPU(%) MEM(k) MEM(%) MAXMEM(k)
MAXMEM(%) VCPUS NETS NETTX(k) NETRX(k) VBDS VBD_OO VBD_RD VBD_WR
VBD_RSECT VBD_WSECT SSID
Domain-0 -----r 839 42.4 12314624 73.5 12582912
75.1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
windowsxp2 --b--- 3583 114.1 4197220 25.0 4198400
25.1 7 1 426 66 2 0 14408 7501
651853 180372 0
And then when it is in use (just loading a youtube page), it is up high
again.
xentop - 11:37:17 Xen 4.3-unstable
2 domains: 2 running, 0 blocked, 0 paused, 0 crashed, 0 dying, 0 shutdown
Mem: 16757972k total, 16739788k used, 18184k free CPUs: 8 @ 4499MHz
NAME STATE CPU(sec) CPU(%) MEM(k) MEM(%) MAXMEM(k)
MAXMEM(%) VCPUS NETS NETTX(k) NETRX(k) VBDS VBD_OO VBD_RD VBD_WR
VBD_RSECT VBD_WSECT SSID
Domain-0 -----r 875 37.8 12314624 73.5 12582912
75.1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
windowsxp2 -----r 3945 529.7 4197220 25.0 4198400
25.1 7 1 4885 201 2 0 17096 8168
788573 198458 0
And also if I shut down the vm while it is at 600% cpu, it takes
something like 10-15 minutes to shut down.
and CPU temperature is only 45 degrees during the high cpu usage, and
26-32 degrees when it's 0%, so whatever CPU waste it's doing is not
generating much heat. With 4.1.3, while a game is open, it reports 200%
cpu, and the temperature is around 50 degrees. I have a huge CPU cooler;
it's overclocked; and normally it runs about 55-70 degrees using 8 cores
depending on the task.
I tested with apic=0 and apic=1 (apic=1 will run windows very slow in
4.1.x, so I have been using apic=0 normally)
On 08/13/2012 10:59 PM, Peter Maloney wrote:
> I also tested 4.1.3, which is fast, and both USB and graphics
> passthrough work, but "xl create" gave this message the first time I
> started the vm (but not the second):
>
> libxl: error: libxl_pci.c:750:libxl_device_pci_reset The kernel doesn't
> support reset from sysfs for PCI device 0000:00:12.0
>
>
> 0000:00:12.0 is a USB device, which works in the VM.
>
> peter:/opt # lspci -v | grep 00:12.0
> 00:12.0 USB Controller: ATI Technologies Inc SB7x0/SB8x0/SB9x0 USB OHCI0
> Controller (prog-if 10 [OHCI])
>
>
> On 08/13/2012 08:54 PM, Peter Maloney wrote:
>> So... did my 4.2-unstable test, using a fresh pull from yesterday; dom0
>> is normal fast (unlike previous tests), and domU is ultra slow, but
>> actually boots, and graphics card passthrough works without any patches,
>> and so does the USB keyboard, but USB mouse passthrough doesn't work.
>>
>>
>> On 08/07/2012 09:25 AM, Peter Maloney wrote:
>>>> That still won't tell us which patches you did apply.
>>> I applied no patches and tested, and the result was slow. And then
>>> applied all patches, and it was fast. I didn't try figuring out which
>>> one it was.
>>>
>>>
>>> So I guess I'll try:
>>> - the latest unstable 4.2
>>> - the 4.1.3-rc (Which includes the patch Malcolm suggested)
>>> - and my rpm source with half patches, 3/4 of them, etc. binary search
>>> style to see which patch(es) changed the performance. But this means I
>>> won't be able to narrow it down to a single patch, but only the point in
>>> the long list where the most dramatic change happens, possibly depending
>>> on many previous patches.
>>>
>>> Thanks so far, guys.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/06/2012 12:31 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06.08.12 at 12:12, Peter Maloney
>>>>>>> <peter.maloney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> my AMD FX-8150 system with vanilla source code is super slow, both the
>>>>> dom0 and domUs. However, after I merge the upstream patches I found in
>>>>> the openSUSE rpm, it runs normally.
>>>> I'd be very surprised if you really just took the upstream patches,
>>>> and the result was better than 4.2-rc1. After all, what upstream
>>>> means is that they were taken from -unstable.
>>>>
>>>>> I tried 4.2-unstable and it was the same. There was no rc1 when I tested
>>>>> it about 1.5 weeks ago. And 4.2 has the same horrible performance, and
>>>>> obviously those patches won't work any more since the 4.2 code looks
>>>>> completely reorganized, so I'm stuck with 4.1.2
>>>> Obviously the upstream patches can't be applied to something
>>>> that already has all those changes. Other patches, of which we
>>>> unfortunately have quite a few, would be a different story.
>>>>
>>>>> Here is the rpm I was using at the time:
>>>>> http://download.opensuse.org/update/12.1/src/xen-4.1.2_16-1.7.1.src.rpm
>>>>>
>>>>> To see the list of the patches and what order to apply them, see the
>>>>> spec file.
>>>> That still won't tell us which patches you did apply.
>>>>
>>>>> Please make sure this performance issue is fixed for the 4.2 release.
>>>>> And I would be happy to test whatever files you send me.
>>>> The sort of report you're doing isn't that helpful. What would
>>>> help is if you could narrow down which patch(es) it is that
>>>> make things so much better. Giving 4.1.3-rc a try might also
>>>> be worthwhile, albeit I would hope we don't have a regression
>>>> in 4.2.0-rc compared to 4.1.3-rc...
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |