|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] open/stat64 syscalls run faster on Xen VM than standard Linux
Mats, Thank you so much for your help. -----Original Message-----From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of xuehai zhangSent: 29 November 2005 12:40 To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Kate Keahey; Tim Freeman; Xen Mailing ListSubject: Re: [Xen-devel] open/stat64 syscalls run faster on Xen VM than standard LinuxAnthony Liguori wrote:This may just be the difference between having the extra level of block caching from using a loop back device.Try running the same benchmark on a domain that uses an actual partition. While the syscalls may appear to be faster, Iimagine it'sbecause the cost of pulling in a block has already beenpayed so theoverall workload is unaffected.I created a new domainU by using the physical partition instead of the loopback file as the backends of the VBDs and I reran the "strace -c /bin/sh -c /bin/echo foo" benchmark inside of the domU. The following are the results. Comparing with the results for domU with loopback files as VBDs I reported in the previous email (quoted below), the average time of open/stat64 syscalls are very similar, but still much smaller than the values for standard Linux. If the reason that open/stat64 run faster on domU with loopback files as VBDs is because of the extra level of block caching from using a loop back device, why open/stat64 still run similarily faster on domU with physical partition as VBDs when there is no extra level of block caching from using a loop back device?Again, have you run the same test-case on the same physical partition? You should be able to do the same trick with mount and chroot for thisone too. Yes, I did. I shutdown the partition-based domU first, then mount the partition and chroot to it, and redid "strace -c /bin/sh -c /bin/echo foo". The following results show the write cost is similar as the value of physical machine while open and stat64 are still similar as values of loopback file-based domU. # strace -c /bin/sh -c /bin/echo foo % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 21.17 0.000482 482 1 write 16.07 0.000366 24 15 old_mmap 14.54 0.000331 37 9 3 open 11.55 0.000263 10 26 brk 8.83 0.000201 40 5 read 7.47 0.000170 85 2 munmap 4.04 0.000092 8 11 rt_sigaction 3.16 0.000072 12 6 close 2.85 0.000065 11 6 fstat64 2.20 0.000050 25 2 access 2.20 0.000050 8 6 rt_sigprocmask 1.80 0.000041 14 3 uname 1.27 0.000029 15 2 stat64 0.35 0.000008 8 1 time 0.35 0.000008 8 1 getppid 0.35 0.000008 8 1 getpgrp 0.35 0.000008 8 1 getuid32 0.35 0.000008 8 1 getgid32 0.31 0.000007 7 1 getpid 0.26 0.000006 6 1 execve 0.26 0.000006 6 1 geteuid32 0.26 0.000006 6 1 getegid32 ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 100.00 0.002277 103 3 total Some more information: The partition I use is /dev/sda6, which is mapped to /tmp in dom0. # mount /tmp # df -lh Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda1 1.5G 728M 661M 53% / tmpfs 62M 4.0K 62M 1% /dev/shm /dev/sda5 938M 250M 640M 29% /var /dev/sda6 4.2G 2.9G 1.2G 72% /tmp # ls /tmp bcfg-run.nightly dbuta/ initrd/ media/ mpd2.console_root= opt/ sbin/ usr/ beckman/ dev/ lib/ mnt/ mpd2.logfile_rbutler proc/ srv/ var/ bin/ etc/ lost+found/ mpd2/ mpd2.logfile_robl root/ sys/ vosg/boot/ home/ mdtest* mpd2.console_robl= mpd2.logfile_root sandbox/ tmp/ zoid_threads/ This is just to rule out other variations (where in the file-systemdifferent files live, just as an example).I'm also not entirely convinced that you don't get some double-caching with this method too - there is the real hard-disk driver in Dom0, then the virtual disk driver in DomU, and the file-system driver in DomU. I don't know if the real or virtual block-device driver itself will cachethings or not. Someone who knows may want to comment on this... I would like to know the caching mechanism of real or virtual block-device driver too. Still, I agree with Anthony - run some REAL loads on the system, rather than microbenchmark a particular, very small function of the whole system. Microbenchmarks are very good at showing how long some particular thing takes, but they are also very sensitive to extremely small changes in the system architecture, which for a bigger load wouldnot be noticable. I'm doing my best to explain things here, but I'm not sure if I'm getting the point across, as it seems like you're trying very hard to get back to the same original question. We do know that Xen behaves different than Linux. One reason for this is that it's dealing with hardware devices through a virtual device. This will most of the time slow things down, but as you've seen, for example due to the double-caching effect, you may sometimes actually gain from it,particularly with very small workloads. I am sorry that I didn't describe before about why I am doing all these microbechmarks. The reason behind is actually coming from the fact that the VM outperforms the physical machine when I ran some real application on both of them originally (VM and physical machine are configured as similar as possible). We all expect that the Xen VM presents a little bit worse performance than the compatible physical machine. So, the performance "gain" on VM to run the same application is really an abnormal observation, which has been made me worried a lot in the past week. That is why I spent so much time tracing down what happens in the application until the level of system calls. So, the problem is original from running the actual application. Thanks. Xuehai XenLinux (physical partition as VBDs) root@cctest1:~/c# strace -c /bin/sh -c /bin/echo foo % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 39.56 0.001955 1955 1 write 18.94 0.000936 936 1 execve 7.65 0.000378 24 16 old_mmap 7.57 0.000374 42 9 2 open 6.27 0.000310 52 6 read 5.10 0.000252 84 3 munmap 4.92 0.000243 9 26 brk 1.92 0.000095 14 7 close 1.78 0.000088 8 11 rt_sigaction 1.40 0.000069 10 7 fstat64 1.01 0.000050 8 6 rt_sigprocmask 0.93 0.000046 23 2 access 0.79 0.000039 13 3 uname 0.69 0.000034 17 2 stat64 0.38 0.000019 19 1 ioctl 0.16 0.000008 8 1 getppid 0.16 0.000008 8 1 getpgrp 0.14 0.000007 7 1 time 0.14 0.000007 7 1 getuid32 0.14 0.000007 7 1 getgid32 0.12 0.000006 6 1 getpid 0.12 0.000006 6 1 getegid32 0.10 0.000005 5 1 geteuid32 ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 100.00 0.004942 109 2 total Thanks. Xuehaixuehai zhang wrote:Dear all,When I debugged the execution performance of an application using strace, I found there are some system calls like open and stat64 which run faster on XenLinux than the standard Linux. Thefollowingis the output of running "strace -c /bin/sh -c /bin/echofoo" on bothsystems. An open call runs averagely 109 usec on standardLinux butonly 41 usecs on XenLinux. An stat64 call runs 75 usecs on standard Linux but only 19 usecs on XenLinux.The Xen VM runs on the same physical machine as thestandard Linux.It uses loopback files in dom0 as the backends of VBDs. Any insight is highly appreciated. Thanks. Xuehai XenLinux: # strace -c /bin/sh -c /bin/echo foo % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 39.05 0.001972 1972 1 write 19.35 0.000977 977 1 execve 7.74 0.000391 24 16 old_mmap 7.23 0.000365 41 9 2 open 6.06 0.000306 51 6 read 5.17 0.000261 10 26 brk 4.93 0.000249 83 3 munmap 1.98 0.000100 14 7 close 1.90 0.000096 9 11 rt_sigaction 1.52 0.000077 11 7 fstat64 1.01 0.000051 9 6 rt_sigprocmask 0.95 0.000048 24 2 access 0.81 0.000041 14 3 uname 0.75 0.000038 19 2 stat64 0.38 0.000019 19 1 ioctl 0.18 0.000009 9 1 time 0.18 0.000009 9 1 getppid 0.16 0.000008 8 1 getpgrp 0.16 0.000008 8 1 getuid32 0.14 0.000007 7 1 getgid32 0.12 0.000006 6 1 getpid 0.12 0.000006 6 1 geteuid32 0.12 0.000006 6 1 getegid32 ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 100.00 0.005050 109 2 total Standard Linux: # strace -c /bin/sh -c /bin/echo foo % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 22.90 0.000982 109 9 2 open 22.85 0.000980 980 1 execve 10.87 0.000466 29 16 old_mmap 10.45 0.000448 448 1 write 7.06 0.000303 51 6 read 6.67 0.000286 10 30 brk 3.61 0.000155 78 2 access 3.50 0.000150 75 2 stat64 2.91 0.000125 42 3 munmap 2.24 0.000096 14 7 close 2.12 0.000091 13 7 fstat64 1.84 0.000079 7 11 rt_sigaction 1.03 0.000044 7 6 rt_sigprocmask 0.72 0.000031 10 3 uname 0.19 0.000008 8 1 geteuid32 0.16 0.000007 7 1 time 0.16 0.000007 7 1 getppid 0.16 0.000007 7 1 getpgrp 0.16 0.000007 7 1 getuid32 0.14 0.000006 6 1 getpid 0.14 0.000006 6 1 getgid32 0.12 0.000005 5 1 getegid32 ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 100.00 0.004289 112 2 total _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |