[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Improve -icount, fix it with iothread
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Improve -icount, fix it with iothread |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Feb 2011 20:33:56 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.7 |
On 02/23/2011 12:39 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> You should try to trace the event flow in qemu, either via strace, via
> the built-in tracer (which likely requires a bit more tracepoints), or
> via a system-level tracer (ftrace / kernelshark).
The apparent problem is that 25% of cycles is spent in mutex locking and
unlocking. But in fact, the real problem is that 90% of the time is
spent doing something else than executing code.
QEMU exits _a lot_ due to the vm_clock timers. The deadlines are rarely more
than a few ms ahead, and at 1 MIPS that leaves room for executing a few
thousand instructions for each context switch. The iothread overhead
is what makes the situation so bad, because it takes a lot more time to
execute those instructions.
We do so many (almost) useless passes through cpu_exec_all that even
microoptimization helps, for example this:
--- a/cpus.c
+++ b/cpus.c
@@ -767,10 +767,6 @@ static void qemu_wait_io_event_common(CPUState *env)
{
CPUState *env;
- while (all_cpu_threads_idle()) {
- qemu_cond_timedwait(tcg_halt_cond, &qemu_global_mutex, 1000);
- }
-
qemu_mutex_unlock(&qemu_global_mutex);
/*
@@ -1110,7 +1111,15 @@ bool cpu_exec_all(void)
}
}
exit_request = 0;
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_IOTHREAD
+ while (all_cpu_threads_idle()) {
+ qemu_cond_timedwait(tcg_halt_cond, &qemu_global_mutex, 1000);
+ }
+ return true;
+#else
return !all_cpu_threads_idle();
+#endif
}
void set_numa_modes(void)
is enough to cut all_cpu_threads_idle from 9 to 4.5% (not unexpected: the
number of calls is halved). But it shouldn't be that high anyway, so
I'm not proposing the patch formally.
Additionally, the fact that the execution is 99.99% lockstep means you cannot
really overlap any part of the I/O and VCPU threads.
I found a couple of inaccuracies in my patches that already cut 50% of the
time, though.
> Did my patches contribute a bit to overhead reduction? They specifically
> target the costly vcpu/iothread switches in TCG mode (caused by TCGs
> excessive lock-holding times).
Yes, they cut 15%.
Paolo
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] do not use qemu_icount_delta in the !use_icount case, (continued)
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] do not use qemu_icount_delta in the !use_icount case, Paolo Bonzini, 2011/02/21
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/4] rewrite accounting of wait time to the vm_clock, Paolo Bonzini, 2011/02/21
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] inline qemu_icount_delta, Paolo Bonzini, 2011/02/21
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] qemu_next_deadline should not consider host-time timers, Paolo Bonzini, 2011/02/21
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Improve -icount, fix it with iothread, Edgar E. Iglesias, 2011/02/23
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Improve -icount, fix it with iothread, Paolo Bonzini, 2011/02/23
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Improve -icount, fix it with iothread, Edgar E. Iglesias, 2011/02/23
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Improve -icount, fix it with iothread, Jan Kiszka, 2011/02/23
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Improve -icount, fix it with iothread, Edgar E. Iglesias, 2011/02/23
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Improve -icount, fix it with iothread, Jan Kiszka, 2011/02/23
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Improve -icount, fix it with iothread,
Paolo Bonzini <=
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Improve -icount, fix it with iothread, Paolo Bonzini, 2011/02/23
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Improve -icount, fix it with iothread, Edgar E. Iglesias, 2011/02/23
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Improve -icount, fix it with iothread, Paolo Bonzini, 2011/02/23