Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 09:09:40 +0300
From: Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LAK <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ashish Kalra <Ashish.Kalra@cavium.com>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Linu Cherian <Linu.Cherian@cavium.com>,
        Shih-Wei Li <shihwei@cs.columbia.edu>,
        Sunil Goutham <Sunil.Goutham@cavium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] IPI performance benchmark
Message-ID: <20171222060940.f2gjsjelqacdyec3@yury-thinkpad>
References: <20171219085010.4081-1-ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>
 <CANRm+Cx6Lm8r2Oej+-EX=Dz76bvu81rVKD-RU0=LRSNs3dw7mw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANRm+Cx6Lm8r2Oej+-EX=Dz76bvu81rVKD-RU0=LRSNs3dw7mw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2017 06:09:53.6631 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b1eedc7a-447a-4023-d686-08d549029ed9
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 711e4ccf-2e9b-4bcf-a551-4094005b6194
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN4PR0701MB3837
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1923
Lines: 37

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 02:44:25PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Hi Yury,
> 2017-12-19 16:50 GMT+08:00 Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>:
> > This benchmark sends many IPIs in different modes and measures
> > time for IPI delivery (first column), and total time, ie including
> > time to acknowledge the receive by sender (second column).
> >
> > The scenarios are:
> > Dry-run:        do everything except actually sending IPI. Useful
> >                 to estimate system overhead.
> > Self-IPI:       Send IPI to self CPU.
> > Normal IPI:     Send IPI to some other CPU.
> > Broadcast IPI:  Send broadcast IPI to all online CPUs.
> > Broadcast lock: Send broadcast IPI to all online CPUs and force them
> >                 acquire/release spinlock.
> >
> > The raw output looks like this:
> > [  155.363374] Dry-run:                         0,            2999696 ns
> > [  155.429162] Self-IPI:                 30385328,           65589392 ns
> > [  156.060821] Normal IPI:              566914128,          631453008 ns
> > [  158.384427] Broadcast IPI:                   0,         2323368720 ns
> > [  160.831850] Broadcast lock:                  0,         2447000544 ns
> >
> > For virtualized guests, sending and reveiving IPIs causes guest exit.
> > I used this test to measure performance impact on KVM subsystem of
> > Christoffer Dall's series "Optimize KVM/ARM for VHE systems" [1].
> >
> > Test machine is ThunderX2, 112 online CPUs. Below the results normalized
> > to host dry-run time, broadcast lock results omitted. Smaller - better.
> 
> Could you test on a x86 box? I see a lot of calltraces on my haswell
> client host, there is no calltrace in the guest, however, I can still
> observe "Invalid parameters" warning when insmod this module. In
> addition, the x86 box fails to boot when ipi_benchmark is buildin.

EINVAL is returned intentionally to let user run test again without
annoying rmmod.