WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] More network tests with xenoprofile this time

On Wednesday 01 June 2005 15:21, Andrew Theurer wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 June 2005 15:03, Jon Mason wrote:
> > On Tuesday 31 May 2005 05:48 pm, Ian Pratt wrote:
> > > > I have cpu util from polling xc_domain_get_cpu_usage() for
> > > > both domains, which is (an exerpt from the whole run, in 3
> > > > second intervals):
> > > >
> > > >  cpu0:  [100.4] d0-0[100.4]
> > > >  cpu2:  [045.1] d1-0[045.1]
> > >
> > > OK, so you're confident idle time would be reported OK if there
> > > was any.
> > >
> > > > > Is the Ethernet NIC sharing an interrupt with the USB
> > > >
> > > > controller per
> > > >
> > > > > chance?
> > > >
> > > > Not as far as I can tell:
> > > >
> > > >            CPU0
> > > >  11:    6764395        Phys-irq  ohci_hcd
> > > >  24:    6037311        Phys-irq  eth0
> > > > 260:    1688517     Dynamic-irq  vif1.0
> > >
> > > Anyone care to suggest hy ohci_hcd is taking so many interrupts?
> > > Looks very fishy to me. I take it you're not using a USB Ethernet
> > > NIC? :-)
> >
> > The bladecenters have a shared USB connected to all the blades.  I
> > would imagine it is the keyboard/mouse or USB CDROM connected to
> > this bus that is generating all of these interrupts.
> >
> > > What happens if you boot 'nousb' ?
> >
> > This shouldn't hurt anything, unless Andrew needs access to kdb or
> > cdrom.
>
> This is on a x336 system, P4 Xeon, not much USB really needed.  I did
> not see any difference in performace or the profile with nousb.
>
> I also tried disbaling the locks in find_domain_by_id and saw no
> difference.  I'm curious to see how things differ with dom0 on CPU-0
> HT-0 and dom1 on CPU-0 HT-1.  I will probably try that next.
>
> FWIW, baremetal linux used about 33% of one cpu to drive the same
> throughput.  int's/sec was 41k/sec for baremetal vs 59k/sec for dom0.
> I don't have the breakdown of int/sec per interrupt number yet.

Wanted to follow up, one correction, I did not have usb disabled 
properly, and with properly removing usb, there is a slight reduction 
in irq handling overhead as a result:

542129    6.2205  xen-unstable-syms        mask_and_ack_level_ioapic_irq
506060    5.8067  xen-unstable-syms        end_level_ioapic_irq
475786    5.4593  vmlinux-2.6.11-xen0-up   net_tx_action
376309    4.3179  vmlinux-2.6.11-xen0-up   tg3_interrupt
263008    3.0178  xen-unstable-syms        find_domain_by_id
239789    2.7514  xen-unstable-syms        hypercall
224547    2.5765  vmlinux-2.6.11-xen0-up   nf_iterate

...vs about 8-9% each for the top two functions before.  The interrupt 
rate for the tg3 adapter is very high still, about 24k/sec.  At that 
rate it does not appear to have any interrupt coalescing going on, so I 
am going to look into that.

-Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel