From patchwork Wed May 17 07:35:51 2017 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: "Zhoujian (jay)" X-Patchwork-Id: 763355 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:4830:134:3::11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3wSR3L5XN8z9s0g for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 17:37:02 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:45887 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dAtW0-0000Bu-Fw for incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 03:37:00 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43221) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dAtVi-0000Bj-4g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 03:36:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dAtVe-0000Uu-5Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 03:36:42 -0400 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.187]:3994) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dAtVa-0000TV-PE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 03:36:38 -0400 Received: from 172.30.72.57 (EHLO DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com) ([172.30.72.57]) by dggrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.4.6-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AOR27194; Wed, 17 May 2017 15:36:06 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.177.19.14) by DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 17 May 2017 15:35:58 +0800 To: Wanpeng Li References: <830bfc39-56c7-a901-9ebb-77d6e7a5614c@huawei.com> <874lxeovrg.fsf@secure.mitica> <7cd332ec-48d4-1feb-12e2-97b50b04e028@huawei.com> <20170424164244.GJ2362@work-vm> <85e3a0dd-20c8-8ff2-37ce-bfdf543e7787@redhat.com> From: Jay Zhou Message-ID: <591BFD57.2080204@huawei.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 15:35:51 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP: [10.177.19.14] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.591BFD68.011E, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2014-11-16 11:51:01, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: fcf2902c2036eb1d3dcb73b8813568cc X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 45.249.212.187 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] About QEMU BQL and dirty log switch in Migration X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "Huangweidong \(C\)" , Zhanghailiang , "quintela@redhat.com" , "wangxin \(U\)" , yanghongyang , Xiao Guangrong , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , "Gonglei \(Arei\)" , Huangzhichao , Paolo Bonzini , "Herongguang \(Stephen\)" Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 2017/5/17 13:47, Wanpeng Li wrote: > Hi Zhoujian, > 2017-05-17 10:20 GMT+08:00 Zhoujian (jay) : >> Hi Wanpeng, >> >>>> On 11/05/2017 14:07, Zhoujian (jay) wrote: >>>>> - * Scan sptes if dirty logging has been stopped, dropping those >>>>> - * which can be collapsed into a single large-page spte. Later >>>>> - * page faults will create the large-page sptes. >>>>> + * Reset each vcpu's mmu, then page faults will create the >>> large-page >>>>> + * sptes later. >>>>> */ >>>>> if ((change != KVM_MR_DELETE) && >>>>> (old->flags & KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES) && >>>>> - !(new->flags & KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES)) >>>>> - kvm_mmu_zap_collapsible_sptes(kvm, new); >>> >>> This is an unlikely branch(unless guest live migration fails and continue >>> to run on the source machine) instead of hot path, do you have any >>> performance number for your real workloads? >>> >> >> Sorry to bother you again. >> >> Recently, I have tested the performance before migration and after migration failure >> using spec cpu2006 https://www.spec.org/cpu2006/, which is a standard performance >> evaluation tool. >> >> These are the results: >> ****** >> Before migration the score is 153, and the TLB miss statistics of the qemu process is: >> linux-sjrfac:/mnt/zhoujian # perf stat -e dTLB-load-misses,dTLB-loads,dTLB-store-misses, \ >> dTLB-stores,iTLB-load-misses,iTLB-loads -p 26463 sleep 10 >> >> Performance counter stats for process id '26463': >> >> 698,938 dTLB-load-misses # 0.13% of all dTLB cache hits (50.46%) >> 543,303,875 dTLB-loads (50.43%) >> 199,597 dTLB-store-misses (16.51%) >> 60,128,561 dTLB-stores (16.67%) >> 69,986 iTLB-load-misses # 6.17% of all iTLB cache hits (16.67%) >> 1,134,097 iTLB-loads (33.33%) >> >> 10.000684064 seconds time elapsed >> >> After migration failure the score is 149, and the TLB miss statistics of the qemu process is: >> linux-sjrfac:/mnt/zhoujian # perf stat -e dTLB-load-misses,dTLB-loads,dTLB-store-misses, \ >> dTLB-stores,iTLB-load-misses,iTLB-loads -p 26463 sleep 10 >> >> Performance counter stats for process id '26463': >> >> 765,400 dTLB-load-misses # 0.14% of all dTLB cache hits (50.50%) >> 540,972,144 dTLB-loads (50.47%) >> 207,670 dTLB-store-misses (16.50%) >> 58,363,787 dTLB-stores (16.67%) >> 109,772 iTLB-load-misses # 9.52% of all iTLB cache hits (16.67%) >> 1,152,784 iTLB-loads (33.32%) >> >> 10.000703078 seconds time elapsed >> ****** > > Could you comment out the original "lazy collapse small sptes into > large sptes" codes in the function kvm_arch_commit_memory_region() and > post the results here? > With the patch below, After migration failure the score is 148, and the TLB miss statistics of the qemu process is: linux-sjrfac:/mnt/zhoujian # perf stat -e dTLB-load-misses,dTLB-loads,dTLB-store-misses,dTLB-stores,iTLB-load-misses,iTLB-loads -p 12432 sleep 10 Performance counter stats for process id '12432': 1,052,697 dTLB-load-misses # 0.19% of all dTLB cache hits (50.45%) 551,828,702 dTLB-loads (50.46%) 147,228 dTLB-store-misses (16.55%) 60,427,834 dTLB-stores (16.50%) 93,793 iTLB-load-misses # 7.43% of all iTLB cache hits (16.67%) 1,262,137 iTLB-loads (33.33%) 10.000709900 seconds time elapsed Regards, Jay Zhou > Regards, > Wanpeng Li > >> >> These are the steps: >> ====== >> (1) the version of kmod is 4.4.11(with slightly modified) and the version of qemu is 2.6.0 >> (with slightly modified), the kmod is applied with the following patch according to >> Paolo's advice: >> >> diff --git a/source/x86/x86.c b/source/x86/x86.c >> index 054a7d3..75a4bb3 100644 >> --- a/source/x86/x86.c >> +++ b/source/x86/x86.c >> @@ -8550,8 +8550,10 @@ void kvm_arch_commit_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm, >> */ >> if ((change != KVM_MR_DELETE) && >> (old->flags & KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES) && >> - !(new->flags & KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES)) >> - kvm_mmu_zap_collapsible_sptes(kvm, new); >> + !(new->flags & KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES)) { >> + printk(KERN_ERR "zj make KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD request\n"); >> + kvm_make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD); >> + } >> >> /* >> * Set up write protection and/or dirty logging for the new slot. >> >> (2) I started up a memory preoccupied 10G VM(suse11sp3), which means its "RES column" in top is 10G, >> in order to set up the EPT table in advance. >> (3) And then, I run the test case 429.mcf of spec cpu2006 before migration and after migration failure. >> The 429.mcf is a memory intensive workload, and the migration failure is constructed deliberately >> with the following patch of qemu: >> >> diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c >> index 5d725d0..88dfc59 100644 >> --- a/migration/migration.c >> +++ b/migration/migration.c >> @@ -625,6 +625,9 @@ static void process_incoming_migration_co(void *opaque) >> MIGRATION_STATUS_ACTIVE); >> ret = qemu_loadvm_state(f); >> >> + // deliberately construct the migration failure >> + exit(EXIT_FAILURE); >> + >> ps = postcopy_state_get(); >> trace_process_incoming_migration_co_end(ret, ps); >> if (ps != POSTCOPY_INCOMING_NONE) { >> ====== >> >> >> Results of the score and TLB miss rate are almost the same, and I am confused. >> May I ask which tool do you use to evaluate the performance? >> And if my test steps are wrong, please let me know, thank you. >> >> Regards, >> Jay Zhou >> >> >> >> >> > > . > diff --git a/source/x86/x86.c b/source/x86/x86.c index 054a7d3..e0288d5 100644 --- a/source/x86/x86.c +++ b/source/x86/x86.c @@ -8548,10 +8548,6 @@ void kvm_arch_commit_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm, * which can be collapsed into a single large-page spte. Later * page faults will create the large-page sptes. */ - if ((change != KVM_MR_DELETE) && - (old->flags & KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES) && - !(new->flags & KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES)) - kvm_mmu_zap_collapsible_sptes(kvm, new); /* * Set up write protection and/or dirty logging for the new slot.