Message-ID: <5550A5A3.5010403@de.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 14:50:43 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
CC: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@kernel.org>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: irqchip: Break up high order allocations of kvm_irq_routing_table
References: <1431088304-11365-1-git-send-email-joro@8bytes.org> <554CE3A5.7000101@redhat.com> <20150511112522.GJ5438@suse.de> <5550964B.6020001@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5550964B.6020001@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1914
Lines: 45

Am 11.05.2015 um 13:45 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> 
> 
> On 11/05/2015 13:25, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>>> It probably doesn't matter much indeed, but can you time the difference?
>>>>  kvm_set_irq_routing is not too frequent, but happens enough often that
>>>> we had to use a separate SRCU instance just to speed it up (see commit
>>>> 719d93cd5f5, kvm/irqchip: Speed up KVM_SET_GSI_ROUTING, 2014-01-16).
>> The results vary a lot, but what I can say for sure is that the
>> kvm_set_irq_routing function takes at least twice as long (~10.000 vs
>> ~22.000 cycles) as before on my AMD Kaveri machine (maximum was between
>> 3-4 times as long).
>>
>> On the other side this function is only called 2 times at boot in my
>> test, so I couldn't detect a noticable effect on the overall boot time
>> of the guest (37 disks were attached).

x86 probably has only some irq lines for this, (or Joerg is using virtio-scsi)

s390 has a route per device, but with 100 virtio-blk devices the difference seem
pretty much on the "dont care" side. qemu aio-poll/drain code seems to cause
much more delay since we elimited the kernel delays by using 
synchronize_srcu_expedited.


> Christian, can you test this?


guest comes up and performance is ok.
I did not do any additional thing (lockdep, kmemleak) but I think the
generic approach is good.
in case the host is overcommited and paging, order-0 allocations might
be much faster and much more reliable than one big order-2, 3 or 4.

Bonus points for the future: We might be able to rework this to re-use
the old  allocations for struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry (bascially
replacing only chip, mr_rt_entries and hlist)

Christian

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/