kvm vs host (arm64)
Christopher Covington
cov at codeaurora.org
Tue Apr 21 06:29:43 PDT 2015
Hi Mohan,
On 04/21/2015 02:23 AM, Mohan G wrote:
> comments inline
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
> To: Mohan G <mohan_gg at yahoo.com>; "linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 4:32 PM
> Subject: Re: kvm vs host (arm64)
>
> Don't top post. This is very annoying.
>
> On 20/04/15 11:39, Mohan G wrote:
>> Thanks for looking into this Marc.
>> Its the xgene storm based SOC. for profiling , we used the ftrace
>> tool. The support for ftrace is present from 3.16 onwards. Its the
>> main line kernel that we have installed. The main purpose of running
>> this BM is for I/O.
>> We initially saw these numbers with DD. The DD numbers too reflect the same.
>>
>> We even tried netperf, just to remove i/o path from perf results.
>> Here too the results are same. Have pasted the perf stat below too
>
>
>
>> guest stat
>> ==========
>>
>> directlocalhost:~]# perf stat dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdc bs=8192 count=1 oflag=
>> 1+0 records in
>> 1+0 records out
>> 8192 bytes (8.2 kB) copied, 0.0132908 s, 616 kB/s
>>
>> Performance counter stats for 'dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdc bs=8192 count=1 oflag=direct':
>>
>> 110.474128 task-clock (msec) # 0.848 CPUs utilized
>> 1 context-switches # 0.009 K/sec
>> 0 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec
>> 174 page-faults # 0.002 M/sec
>> <not supported> cycles
>> <not supported> stalled-cycles-frontend
>> <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend
>> <not supported> instructions
>> <not supported> branches
>> <not supported> branch-misses
>>
>> 0.130255744 seconds time elapsed
>
> Do you realize that:
> - You're using what looks like a userspace emulated device. Du you
> expect any form for performance with that kind of setup?
> - Your "benchmark" is absolutely meaningless (who wants to transfer 8k
> to measure bandwidth?)
>
> For the record:
>
> root at muffin-man:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/vda5 bs=8192 count=1 oflag=direct
> 1+0 records in
> 1+0 records out
> 8192 bytes (8.2 kB) copied, 0.00110308 s, 7.4 MB/s
>
> And yet I persist, this is an absolute meaningless test.
>
>
>
> The example above is bad, the real purpose is to load file system workload and hence we tested with DD. The single count 8k is just and example. In reality we use iozone for real large files to
> measure performance.
> However, we just realised what we were doing wrong. We did not use the accel=kvm flag with qemu which stopped us from using the
> -cpu type as host.(without which i think makes qemu emulate the processor (cortex-a57) itself). Now with using this flag we are about 35% slower in guest vs host for smaller block sizes (8k,32k,64k). However what is
> surprising is the fact that we are seeing better than host numbers with 512k and 1M record sizes of iozone.
> Just wanted some confirmation about the below options. (this gives us good numbers)
>
> qemu-system-aarch64 -machine virt,accel=kvm -cpu host -nographic -smp 4 -m 8192 -global virtio-blk-device.scsi=off -device virtio-scsi-device,id=scsi -drive file=/vm/ubuntu-core-14.04.1-core-arm64.img,id=coreimg,cache=none,if=none -device scsi-hd,drive=coreimg -kernel /boot/vmlinuz-3.18.9 -initrd /boot/initrd.img-3.18.9 -netdev user,id=unet -device virtio-net-device,netdev=unet -drive file=/dev/sdb,cache=directsync,if=scsi,bus=0,unit=1 --append "console=ttyAMA0 root=/dev/sda"
>
>
>
> but with
> =======
> qemu-system-aarch64 -machine virt -cpu cortex-a57 (i.e without accel=kvm and -cpu as this one) we are pretty bad.
This is how I invoke full system emulation mode. Also, the cycle counter
values in this mode are derived from the x86 cycle counter, although it looks
like perf isn't using it, probably because there is no PMU node in the device
tree that QEMU is generating.
Chris
>> host
>> =====
>> root at mustang1:/home/gmohan# perf stat dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda6 bs=8192 count=1 oflag=direct
>> 1+0 records in
>> 1+0 records out
>> 8192 bytes (8.2 kB) copied, 0.00087308 s, 9.4 MB/s
>>
>> Performance counter stats for 'dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda6 bs=8192 count=1 oflag=direct':
>>
>> 1.024280 task-clock (msec) # 0.525 CPUs utilized
>> 9 context-switches # 0.009 M/sec
>> 0 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec
>> 198 page-faults # 0.193 M/sec
>> 24,17,939 cycles # 2.361 GHz
>> <not supported> stalled-cycles-frontend
>> <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend
>> 8,30,511 instructions # 0.34 insns per cycle
>> <not supported> branches
>> 17,198 branch-misses # 0.00% of all branches
>>
>> 0.001949620 seconds time elapsed
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Mohan
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
>> To: Mohan G <mohan_gg at yahoo.com>; "linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:39 PM
>> Subject: Re: kvm vs host (arm64)
>>
>> On 20/04/15 06:45, Mohan G wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I have got hold of few mustang boards (cortex-a57). Ran a few bench
>>
>> Mustang is *not* based on Cortex-A57. So which hardware do you have?
>>
>>> marks to measure perf numbers b/w host and guest (kvm). The numbers
>>> are pretty bad. (drop of about 90% to that of host). I even tried
>>> running this simple program .
>>>
>>> main(){
>>> int i=0;
>>>
>>> for(i=0;i<10;i++);
>>> }
>>> Profiling the above shows that same kernel functions in guest takes
>>> almost 10x to that of host. sample below
>>>
>>>
>>> Host
>>> ====
>>> 7202 one-3920 [003] 20015.611563: funcgraph_entry: | find_vma() {
>>> 7203 one-3920 [003] 20015.611564: funcgraph_entry: 0.180 us | vmacache_find();
>>> 7204 one-3920 [003] 20015.611565: funcgraph_entry: 0.120 us | vmacache_update();
>>> 7205 one-3920 [003] 20015.611566: funcgraph_exit: 2.320 us | }
>>>
>>>
>>> Guest
>>> =====
>>>
>>> one-751 [000] 206.843300: funcgraph_entry: | find_vma() {
>>> one-751 [000] 206.843312: funcgraph_entry: 4.880 us | vmacache_find();
>>> one-751 [000] 206.843335: funcgraph_entry: 2.656 us | vmacache_update();
>>> one-751 [000] 206.843354: funcgraph_exit: + 46.256 us | }
>>
>>
>> I wonder how you manage to profile this, as we don't have any perf
>> support in KVM yet (you cannot profile a guest). Can you describe your
>> profiling method? Also, can you use a non-trivial test (i.e. something
>> that is not pure overhead)?
>>
>> If that's all your test does, you end up measuring the cost of a stage-2
>> page fault, which only happens at startup.
>>
>>> kernel: 3.18.9
>>
>> Is that mainline 3.18.9? Or some special tree? I'm also interested in
>> seeing results from a 4.0 kernel.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> M.
>>
>
>
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list