On 1/29/19 4:48 PM, Emilio G. Cota wrote: > This yields sizable scalability improvements, as the below results show. > > Host: Two Intel E5-2683 v3 14-core CPUs at 2.00 GHz (Haswell) > > Workload: Ubuntu 18.04 ppc64 compiling the linux kernel with > "make -j N", where N is the number of cores in the guest. > > Speedup vs a single thread (higher is better): > > 14 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ > | + + + + + + $$$$$$ + | > | $$$$$ | > | $$$$$$ | > 12 |-+ $A$$ +-| > | $$ | > | $$$ | > 10 |-+ $$ ##D#####################D +-| > | $$$ #####**B**************** | > | $$####***** ***** | > | A$#***** B | > 8 |-+ $$B** +-| > | $$** | > | $** | > 6 |-+ $$* +-| > | A** | > | $B | > | $ | > 4 |-+ $* +-| > | $ | > | $ | > 2 |-+ $ +-| > | $ +cputlb-no-bql $$A$$ | > | A +per-cpu-lock ##D## | > | + + + + + + baseline **B** | > 0 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ > 1 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 > Guest vCPUs > png: https://imgur.com/zZRvS7q > > Some notes: > - baseline corresponds to the commit before this series > > - per-cpu-lock is the commit that converts the CPU loop to per-cpu locks. > > - cputlb-no-bql is this commit. > > - I'm using taskset to assign cores to threads, favouring locality whenever > possible but not using SMT. When N=1, I'm using a single host core, which > leads to superlinear speedups (since with more cores the I/O thread can > execute > while vCPU threads sleep). In the future I might use N+1 host cores for N > guest cores to avoid this, or perhaps pin guest threads to cores one-by-one. > > Single-threaded performance is affected very lightly. Results > below for debian aarch64 bootup+test for the entire series > on an Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700K CPU @ 4.00GHz host: > > - Before: > > Performance counter stats for 'taskset -c 0 ../img/aarch64/die.sh' (10 runs): > > 7269.033478 task-clock (msec) # 0.998 CPUs utilized > ( +- 0.06% ) > 30,659,870,302 cycles # 4.218 GHz > ( +- 0.06% ) > 54,790,540,051 instructions # 1.79 insns per cycle > ( +- 0.05% ) > 9,796,441,380 branches # 1347.695 M/sec > ( +- 0.05% ) > 165,132,201 branch-misses # 1.69% of all branches > ( +- 0.12% ) > > 7.287011656 seconds time elapsed > ( +- 0.10% ) > > - After: > > 7375.924053 task-clock (msec) # 0.998 CPUs utilized > ( +- 0.13% ) > 31,107,548,846 cycles # 4.217 GHz > ( +- 0.12% ) > 55,355,668,947 instructions # 1.78 insns per cycle > ( +- 0.05% ) > 9,929,917,664 branches # 1346.261 M/sec > ( +- 0.04% ) > 166,547,442 branch-misses # 1.68% of all branches > ( +- 0.09% ) > > 7.389068145 seconds time elapsed > ( +- 0.13% ) > > That is, a 1.37% slowdown. > > Signed-off-by: Emilio G. Cota <[email protected]> > --- > accel/tcg/cputlb.c | 10 +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <[email protected]> r~
