[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: [Xen-devel] swiotlb=force in Konrad's xen-pcifront-0.8.2 pvops domU kernel with PCI passthrough
> We did suspect it, since our old setting was HZ=1000 and we assigned > more than 10 VCPUs to domU. But we don't see the performance difference > with HZ=100. FWIW, it didn't appear that the problems were proportional to HZ. Seemed more that somehow the pvclock became incorrect and spent a lot of time rereading the pvclock value. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lin, Ray [mailto:Ray.Lin@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:40 PM > To: Dan Magenheimer; Dante Cinco; Konrad Wilk > Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge; Xen-devel; mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx; > Andrew Thomas; keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Chris Mason > Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] swiotlb=force in Konrad's xen-pcifront-0.8.2 > pvops domU kernel with PCI passthrough > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel- > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan Magenheimer > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 1:21 PM > To: Dante Cinco; Konrad Wilk > Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge; Xen-devel; mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx; > Andrew Thomas; keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Chris Mason > Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] swiotlb=force in Konrad's xen-pcifront-0.8.2 > pvops domU kernel with PCI passthrough > > In case it is related: > http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2010- > 07/msg01247.html > > Although I never went further on this investigation, it appeared to me > that pvclock_clocksource_read was getting called at least an order-of- > magnitude more frequently than expected in some circumstances for some > kernels. And IIRC it was scaled by the number of vcpus. > > We did suspect it, since our old setting was HZ=1000 and we assigned > more than 10 VCPUs to domU. But we don't see the performance difference > with HZ=100. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dante Cinco [mailto:dantecinco@xxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 12:36 PM > > To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > > Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge; Xen-devel; mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx; > > Andrew Thomas; keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Chris Mason > > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] swiotlb=force in Konrad's xen-pcifront-0.8.2 > > pvops domU kernel with PCI passthrough > > > > I mentioned earlier in an previous post to this thread that I'm able > > to apply Dulloor's xenoprofile patch to the dom0 kernel but not the > > domU kernel. So I can't do active-domain profiling but I'm able to do > > passive-domain profiling but I don't know how reliable the results > are > > since it shows pvclock_clocksource_read as the top consumer of CPU > > cycles at 28%. > > > > CPU: Intel Architectural Perfmon, speed 2665.98 MHz (estimated) > > Counted CPU_CLK_UNHALTED events (Clock cycles when not halted) with a > > unit mask of 0x00 (No unit mask) count 100000 > > samples % image name app name > > symbol name > > 918089 27.9310 > > vmlinux-2.6.36-rc7-pvops-kpcif-08-2-domu-5.11.dcinco-debug > > domain1-kernel pvclock_clocksource_read > > 217811 6.6265 domain1-modules domain1-modules > > /domain1-modules > > 188327 5.7295 vmlinux-2.6.32.25-pvops-stable-dom0-5.7.dcinco- > debug > > vmlinux-2.6.32.25-pvops-stable-dom0-5.7.dcinco-debug > > mutex_spin_on_owner > > 186684 5.6795 > > vmlinux-2.6.36-rc7-pvops-kpcif-08-2-domu-5.11.dcinco-debug > > domain1-kernel __xen_spin_lock > > 149514 4.5487 > > vmlinux-2.6.36-rc7-pvops-kpcif-08-2-domu-5.11.dcinco-debug > > domain1-kernel __write_lock_failed > > 123278 3.7505 > > vmlinux-2.6.36-rc7-pvops-kpcif-08-2-domu-5.11.dcinco-debug > > domain1-kernel __kernel_text_address > > 122906 3.7392 > > vmlinux-2.6.36-rc7-pvops-kpcif-08-2-domu-5.11.dcinco-debug > > domain1-kernel xen_spin_unlock > > 90903 2.7655 > > vmlinux-2.6.36-rc7-pvops-kpcif-08-2-domu-5.11.dcinco-debug > > domain1-kernel __spin_time_accum > > 85880 2.6127 > > vmlinux-2.6.36-rc7-pvops-kpcif-08-2-domu-5.11.dcinco-debug > > domain1-kernel __module_address > > 75223 2.2885 > > vmlinux-2.6.36-rc7-pvops-kpcif-08-2-domu-5.11.dcinco-debug > > domain1-kernel print_context_stack > > 66778 2.0316 > > vmlinux-2.6.36-rc7-pvops-kpcif-08-2-domu-5.11.dcinco-debug > > domain1-kernel __module_text_address > > 57389 1.7459 > > vmlinux-2.6.36-rc7-pvops-kpcif-08-2-domu-5.11.dcinco-debug > > domain1-kernel is_module_text_address > > 47282 1.4385 xen-syms-4.1-unstable domain1-xen > > syscall_enter > > 47219 1.4365 > > vmlinux-2.6.36-rc7-pvops-kpcif-08-2-domu-5.11.dcinco-debug > > domain1-kernel prio_tree_insert > > 46495 1.4145 vmlinux-2.6.32.25-pvops-stable-dom0-5.7.dcinco- > debug > > vmlinux-2.6.32.25-pvops-stable-dom0-5.7.dcinco-debug > > pvclock_clocksource_read > > 44501 1.3539 > > vmlinux-2.6.36-rc7-pvops-kpcif-08-2-domu-5.11.dcinco-debug > > domain1-kernel prio_tree_left > > 32482 0.9882 > > vmlinux-2.6.36-rc7-pvops-kpcif-08-2-domu-5.11.dcinco-debug > > domain1-kernel native_read_tsc > > > > I ran oprofile (0.9.5 with xenoprofile patch) for 20 seconds while > the > > I/Os were running. Here's the command I used: > > > > opcontrol --start --xen=/boot/xen-syms-4.1-unstable > > --vmlinux=/boot/vmlinux-2.6.32.25-pvops-stable-dom0-5.7.dcinco-debug > > --passive-domains=1 > > --passive-images=/boot/vmlinux-2.6.36-rc7-pvops-kpcif-08-2-domu- > > 5.11.dcinco-debug > > > > I had to remove dom0_max_vcpus=1 (but kept dom0_vcpus_pin=true) in > the > > Xen command line. Otherwise, oprofile only gives the samples from > > CPU0. > > > > I'm going to try perf next. > > > > - Dante > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 |