On 2017/11/29 21:35, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 07:58:19PM +0800, Longpeng (Mike) wrote:
>> On 2017/11/29 18:41, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:20:38PM +0800, Longpeng (Mike) wrote:
On 2017/11/29 5:13, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28,
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 06:15:05PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 29/11/2017 14:35, Roman Kagan wrote:
> >>
> >>> IMO, the long term solution is to make Linux guests not misbehave
> >>> when we stop lying about the L3 cache. Maybe we could provide a
> >>> "IPIs are expensive, please avoid them"
On 29/11/2017 14:35, Roman Kagan wrote:
>>
>>> IMO, the long term solution is to make Linux guests not misbehave
>>> when we stop lying about the L3 cache. Maybe we could provide a
>>> "IPIs are expensive, please avoid them" hint in the KVM CPUID
>>> leaf?
> We already have it, it's the
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 04:35:25PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > On 2017/11/29 18:41, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
[...]
> > > IMO, the long term solution is to make Linux guests not misbehave
> > > when we stop lying about the L3 cache. Maybe we could provide a
> > > "IPIs are expensive, please avoid
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 07:58:19PM +0800, Longpeng (Mike) wrote:
> On 2017/11/29 18:41, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:20:38PM +0800, Longpeng (Mike) wrote:
> >> On 2017/11/29 5:13, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:20:27PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
On 2017/11/29 18:41, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:20:38PM +0800, Longpeng (Mike) wrote:
>> On 2017/11/29 5:13, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> [CCing the people who were copied in the original patch that
>>> enabled l3cache]
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:20:27PM +0300,
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:20:38PM +0800, Longpeng (Mike) wrote:
> On 2017/11/29 5:13, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > [CCing the people who were copied in the original patch that
> > enabled l3cache]
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:20:27PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> >> On 11/28/2017 10:58 PM,
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 08:46:55AM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 07:13:26PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > [CCing the people who were copied in the original patch that
> > enabled l3cache]
>
> Thanks, and sorry to have forgotten to do so in the patch!
>
> > On Tue, Nov
On 2017/11/29 14:01, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:20:38PM +0800, Longpeng (Mike) wrote:
>> On 2017/11/29 5:13, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>
>>> [CCing the people who were copied in the original patch that
>>> enabled l3cache]
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:20:27PM +0300,
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 06:17:40AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:20:27PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> > > There's one thing I don't understand in your test case: if you
> > > just found out that Linux will behave worse if it assumes that
> > > the VCPUs are
le.net; qemu-devel@nongnu.org;
> huangpeng; Zhaoshenglong
> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] i386: turn off l3-cache property by default
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:57:14AM +, Gonglei (Arei) wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:20:27PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:20:38PM +0800, Longpeng (Mike) wrote:
> On 2017/11/29 5:13, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>
> > [CCing the people who were copied in the original patch that
> > enabled l3cache]
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:20:27PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> >> On 11/28/2017 10:58
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:57:14AM +, Gonglei (Arei) wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:20:27PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> > > On 11/28/2017 10:58 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 04:26:50PM +0300, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
> > > >> Commit 14c985cffa "target-i386:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 07:13:26PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> [CCing the people who were copied in the original patch that
> enabled l3cache]
Thanks, and sorry to have forgotten to do so in the patch!
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:20:27PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> > On 11/28/2017 10:58
On 2017/11/29 5:13, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> [CCing the people who were copied in the original patch that
> enabled l3cache]
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:20:27PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
>> On 11/28/2017 10:58 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 04:26:50PM
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 08:50:54PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 28/11/2017 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> Now there's a downside: with L3 cache the Linux scheduler is more eager
> >> to wake up tasks on sibling CPUs, resulting in unnecessary cross-vCPU
> >> interactions and therefore
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:20:27PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> > There's one thing I don't understand in your test case: if you
> > just found out that Linux will behave worse if it assumes that
> > the VCPUs are sharing a L3 cache, why are you configuring a
> > 8-core VCPU topology explicitly?
uozzo.com; Gonglei (Arei); huangpeng;
> Zhaoshenglong; herongguang...@huawei.com
> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] i386: turn off l3-cache property by default
>
> [CCing the people who were copied in the original patch that
> enabled l3cache]
>
Thanks for Ccing.
> On Tue, No
[CCing the people who were copied in the original patch that
enabled l3cache]
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:20:27PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> On 11/28/2017 10:58 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 04:26:50PM +0300, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
> >> Commit 14c985cffa
On 11/28/2017 10:58 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 04:26:50PM +0300, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
>> Commit 14c985cffa "target-i386: present virtual L3 cache info for vcpus"
>> introduced and set by default exposing l3 to the guest.
>>
>> The motivation behind it was that
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 04:26:50PM +0300, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
> Commit 14c985cffa "target-i386: present virtual L3 cache info for vcpus"
> introduced and set by default exposing l3 to the guest.
>
> The motivation behind it was that in the Linux scheduler, when waking up
> a task on a
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 08:50:54PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 28/11/2017 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> Now there's a downside: with L3 cache the Linux scheduler is more eager
> >> to wake up tasks on sibling CPUs, resulting in unnecessary cross-vCPU
> >> interactions and therefore
On 28/11/2017 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> Now there's a downside: with L3 cache the Linux scheduler is more eager
>> to wake up tasks on sibling CPUs, resulting in unnecessary cross-vCPU
>> interactions and therefore exessive halts and IPIs. E.g. "perf bench
>> sched pipe -i 10" gives
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 04:26:50PM +0300, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
> Commit 14c985cffa "target-i386: present virtual L3 cache info for vcpus"
> introduced and set by default exposing l3 to the guest.
>
> The motivation behind it was that in the Linux scheduler, when waking up
> a task on a sibling
Commit 14c985cffa "target-i386: present virtual L3 cache info for vcpus"
introduced and set by default exposing l3 to the guest.
The motivation behind it was that in the Linux scheduler, when waking up
a task on a sibling CPU, the task was put onto the target CPU's runqueue
directly, without
25 matches
Mail list logo
