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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: credit1: on vCPU wakeup, kick away current only if makes sense

On 29/10/15 10:57, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> In fact, when waking up a vCPU, __runq_tickle() is called
> to allow the new vCPU to run on a pCPU (which one, depends
> on the relationship between the priority of the new vCPU,
> and the ones of the vCPUs that are already running).
> If there is no idle processor on which the new vCPU can
> run (e.g., because of pinning/affinity), we try to migrate
> away the vCPU that is currently running on the new vCPU's
> processor (i.e., the processor on which the vCPU is waking
> up).
> Now, trying to migrate a vCPU has the effect of pushing it
> through a
>  running --> offline --> runnable
> transition, which, in turn, has the following negative
> effects:
>  1) Credit1 counts that as a wakeup, and it BOOSTs the
>     vCPU, even if it is a CPU-bound one, which wouldn't
>     normally have deserved boosting. This can prevent
>     legit IO-bound vCPUs to get ahold of the processor
>     until such spurious boosting expires, hurting the
>     performance!
>  2) since the vCPU is fails the vcpu_runnable() test
>     (within the call to csched_schedule() that follows
>     the wakeup, as a consequence of tickling) the
>     scheduling rate-limiting mechanism is also fooled,
>     i.e., the context switch happens even if less than
>     the minimum execution amount of time passed.
> In particular, 1) has been reported to cause the following
> issue:
>  * VM-IO: 1-vCPU pinned to a pCPU, running netperf
>  * VM-CPU: 1-vCPU pinned the the same pCPU, running a busy
>            CPU loop
>  ==> Only VM-I/O: throughput is 806.64 Mbps
>  ==> VM-I/O + VM-CPU: throughput is 166.50 Mbps
> This patch solves (for the above scenario) the problem
> by checking whether or not it makes sense to try to
> migrate away the vCPU currently running on the processor.
> In fact, if there aren't idle processors where such a vCPU
> can execute. attempting the migration is just futile
> (harmful, actually!).
> With this patch, in the above configuration, results are:
>  ==> Only VM-I/O: throughput is 807.18 Mbps
>  ==> VM-I/O + VM-CPU: throughput is 731.66 Mbps
> Reported-by: Kun Suo <ksuo@xxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Kun Suo <ksuo@xxxxxxxx>

I'm getting a bit worried about how long the path is to actually wake up
a vcpu; if this only affected the "pin" case, then I might say it wasn't
worth it.  But it looks to me like this could be a consistent pattern on
any system where there was consistently no idlers available; so at this
point it's probably better to have than not:

Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>

Xen-devel mailing list



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