Re: [Qemu-devel] win7 bad i/o performance, high insn_emulation and exists

[Peter Lieven]

On 20.02.2012 19:40, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 07:17:55PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I came a across an issue with a Windows 7 (32-bit) as well as with a
> > Windows 2008 R2 (64-bit) guest.
> >
> > If I transfer a file from the VM via CIFS or FTP to a remote machine,
> > i get very poor read performance (around 13MB/s). The VM peaks at 100%
> > cpu and I see a lot of insn_emulations and all kinds of exists in kvm_stat
> >
> > efer_reload                    0         0
> > exits                    2260976     79620
> > fpu_reload                  6197        11
> > halt_exits                114734      5011
> > halt_wakeup               111195      4876
> > host_state_reload        1499659     60962
> > hypercalls                     0         0
> > insn_emulation           1577325     58488
> > insn_emulation_fail            0         0
> > invlpg                         0         0
> > io_exits                  943949     40249
> Hmm, too many of those.
>
> > irq_exits                 108679      5434
> > irq_injections            236545     10788
> > irq_window                  7606       246
> > largepages                   672         5
> > mmio_exits                460020     16082
> > mmu_cache_miss               119         0
> > mmu_flooded                    0         0
> > mmu_pde_zapped                 0         0
> > mmu_pte_updated                0         0
> > mmu_pte_write              13474         9
> > mmu_recycled                   0         0
> > mmu_shadow_zapped            141         0
> > mmu_unsync                     0         0
> > nmi_injections                 0         0
> > nmi_window                     0         0
> > pf_fixed                   22803        35
> > pf_guest                       0         0
> > remote_tlb_flush             239         2
> > request_irq                    0         0
> > signal_exits                   0         0
> > tlb_flush                  20933         0
> >
> > If I run the same VM with a Ubuntu 10.04.4 guest I get around 60MB/s
> > throughput. The kvm_stats look a lot more sane.
> >
> > efer_reload                    0         0
> > exits                    6132004     17931
> > fpu_reload                 19863         3
> > halt_exits                264961      3083
> > halt_wakeup               236468      2959
> > host_state_reload        1104468      3104
> > hypercalls                     0         0
> > insn_emulation           1417443      7518
> > insn_emulation_fail            0         0
> > invlpg                         0         0
> > io_exits                  869380      2795
> > irq_exits                 253501      2362
> > irq_injections            616967      6804
> > irq_window                201186      2161
> > largepages                  1019         0
> > mmio_exits                205268         0
> > mmu_cache_miss               192         0
> > mmu_flooded                    0         0
> > mmu_pde_zapped                 0         0
> > mmu_pte_updated                0         0
> > mmu_pte_write            7440546         0
> > mmu_recycled                   0         0
> > mmu_shadow_zapped            259         0
> > mmu_unsync                     0         0
> > nmi_injections                 0         0
> > nmi_window                     0         0
> > pf_fixed                   38529        30
> > pf_guest                       0         0
> > remote_tlb_flush             761         1
> > request_irq                    0         0
> > signal_exits                   0         0
> > tlb_flush                      0         0
> >
> > I use virtio-net (with vhost-net) and virtio-blk. I tried disabling
> > hpet (which basically illiminated the mmio_exits, but does not
> > increase
> > performance) and also commit (39a7a362e16bb27e98738d63f24d1ab5811e26a8
> > ) - no improvement.
> >
> > My commandline:
> > /usr/bin/qemu-kvm-1.0 -netdev
> > type=tap,id=guest8,script=no,downscript=no,ifname=tap0,vhost=on
> > -device virtio-net-pci,netdev=guest8,mac=52:54:00:ff:00:d3 -drive 
> > format=host_device,file=/dev/mapper/iqn.2001-05.com.equallogic:0-8a0906-eeef4e007-a8a9f3818674f2fc-lieven-windows7-vc-r80788,if=virtio,cache=none,aio=native
> > -m 2048 -smp 2 -monitor tcp:0:4001,server,nowait -vnc :1 -name
> > lieven-win7-vc -boot order=dc,menu=off -k de -pidfile
> > /var/run/qemu/vm-187.pid -mem-path /hugepages -mem-prealloc -cpu
> > host -rtc base=localtime -vga std -usb -usbdevice tablet -no-hpet
> >
> > What further information is needed to debug this further?
> Which kernel version (looks like something recent)?
2.6.38 with kvm-kmod 3.2
> Which host CPU (looks like something old)?
why? i guess its (quite) new.

vendor_id    : GenuineIntel
cpu family    : 6
model        : 44
model name    : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU           L5640  @ 2.27GHz
stepping    : 2
cpu MHz        : 1596.000
cache size    : 12288 KB
physical id    : 1
siblings    : 6
core id        : 10
cpu cores    : 6
apicid        : 52
initial apicid    : 52
fpu        : yes
fpu_exception    : yes
cpuid level    : 11
wp        : yes
flags        : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca 
cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall 
nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl 
xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx 
smx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm dca sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt aes lahf_lm 
arat dts tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid
bogomips    : 2254.43
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment    : 64
address sizes    : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual

> Which Windows' virtio drivers are you using?
i used to use 0.1-16 and today also tried 0.1-22 from
http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/virtio-win/latest/images/
> Take a trace like described here http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Tracing
> (with -no-hpet please).
will prepare this.
> Try to use -cpu host,+x2apic. It may help Linux guest performance.
Thanks, it improved throughput a little while lowering the
cpu usage. Windows does not support this?

Thanks
Peter
> --
>                         Gleb.