Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv11 4/4] gnttab: use per-VCPU maptrack free lists

2015-06-12 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 11.06.15 at 17:28, wrote: > At 15:51 +0100 on 05 Jun (1433519478), Jan Beulich wrote: >> Iirc before both of these changes, and the v10 ones imo should >> have invalidated it. Tim, I'm particularly trying to understand >> whether you're okay with the original's (potentially even heavier) >>

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv11 4/4] gnttab: use per-VCPU maptrack free lists

2015-06-11 Thread Tim Deegan
At 15:51 +0100 on 05 Jun (1433519478), Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 02.06.15 at 18:26, wrote: > > Performance analysis of aggregate network throughput with many VMs > > shows that performance is signficantly limited by contention on the > > maptrack lock when obtaining/releasing maptrack handles fr

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv11 4/4] gnttab: use per-VCPU maptrack free lists

2015-06-07 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 05.06.15 at 18:42, wrote: > On 05/06/15 17:11, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 05.06.15 at 17:55, wrote: >>> On 05/06/15 15:51, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 02.06.15 at 18:26, wrote: > +/* > + * max_maptrack_frames is per domain so each VCPU gets a share of > + * the

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv11 4/4] gnttab: use per-VCPU maptrack free lists

2015-06-05 Thread David Vrabel
On 05/06/15 17:11, Jan Beulich wrote: On 05.06.15 at 17:55, wrote: >> On 05/06/15 15:51, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 02.06.15 at 18:26, wrote: +/* + * max_maptrack_frames is per domain so each VCPU gets a share of + * the maximum, but allow at least one frame per

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv11 4/4] gnttab: use per-VCPU maptrack free lists

2015-06-05 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 05.06.15 at 17:55, wrote: > On 05/06/15 15:51, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 02.06.15 at 18:26, wrote: >>> +/* >>> + * max_maptrack_frames is per domain so each VCPU gets a share of >>> + * the maximum, but allow at least one frame per VCPU. >>> + */ >>> +if ( v->maptrack

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv11 4/4] gnttab: use per-VCPU maptrack free lists

2015-06-05 Thread David Vrabel
On 05/06/15 15:51, Jan Beulich wrote: On 02.06.15 at 18:26, wrote: >> Performance analysis of aggregate network throughput with many VMs >> shows that performance is signficantly limited by contention on the >> maptrack lock when obtaining/releasing maptrack handles from the free >> list. >>

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv11 4/4] gnttab: use per-VCPU maptrack free lists

2015-06-05 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 02.06.15 at 18:26, wrote: > Performance analysis of aggregate network throughput with many VMs > shows that performance is signficantly limited by contention on the > maptrack lock when obtaining/releasing maptrack handles from the free > list. > > Instead of a single free list use a per-V

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv11 4/4] gnttab: use per-VCPU maptrack free lists

2015-06-03 Thread David Vrabel
On 02/06/15 17:26, David Vrabel wrote: > Performance analysis of aggregate network throughput with many VMs > shows that performance is signficantly limited by contention on the > maptrack lock when obtaining/releasing maptrack handles from the free > list. Sometime during all this refactoring, I

[Xen-devel] [PATCHv11 4/4] gnttab: use per-VCPU maptrack free lists

2015-06-02 Thread David Vrabel
Performance analysis of aggregate network throughput with many VMs shows that performance is signficantly limited by contention on the maptrack lock when obtaining/releasing maptrack handles from the free list. Instead of a single free list use a per-VCPU list. This avoids any contention when obta