Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 3/3] tcg/i386: enable dynamic TLB sizing

[Richard Henderson]

On 1/19/19 2:04 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
> 
> Emilio G. Cota <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> As the following experiments show, this series is a net perf gain,
>> particularly for memory-heavy workloads. Experiments are run on an
>> Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6142 CPU @ 2.60GHz.
>>
>> 1. System boot + shudown, debian aarch64:
>>
>> - Before (v3.1.0):
>>  Performance counter stats for './die.sh v3.1.0' (10 runs):
>>
>>        9019.797015      task-clock (msec)         #    0.993 CPUs utilized   
>>          ( +-  0.23% )
>>     29,910,312,379      cycles                    #    3.316 GHz             
>>          ( +-  0.14% )
>>     54,699,252,014      instructions              #    1.83  insn per cycle  
>>          ( +-  0.08% )
>>     10,061,951,686      branches                  # 1115.541 M/sec           
>>          ( +-  0.08% )
>>        172,966,530      branch-misses             #    1.72% of all branches 
>>          ( +-  0.07% )
>>
>>        9.084039051 seconds time elapsed                                      
>>     ( +-  0.23% )
>>
>> - After:
>>  Performance counter stats for './die.sh tlb-dyn-v5' (10 runs):
>>
>>        8624.084842      task-clock (msec)         #    0.993 CPUs utilized   
>>          ( +-  0.23% )
>>     28,556,123,404      cycles                    #    3.311 GHz             
>>          ( +-  0.13% )
>>     51,755,089,512      instructions              #    1.81  insn per cycle  
>>          ( +-  0.05% )
>>      9,526,513,946      branches                  # 1104.641 M/sec           
>>          ( +-  0.05% )
>>        166,578,509      branch-misses             #    1.75% of all branches 
>>          ( +-  0.19% )
>>
>>        8.680540350 seconds time elapsed                                      
>>     ( +-  0.24% )
>>
>> That is, a 4.4% perf increase.
>>
>> 2. System boot + shutdown, ubuntu 18.04 x86_64:
>>
>> - Before (v3.1.0):
>>       56100.574751      task-clock (msec)         #    1.016 CPUs utilized   
>>          ( +-  4.81% )
>>    200,745,466,128      cycles                    #    3.578 GHz             
>>          ( +-  5.24% )
>>    431,949,100,608      instructions              #    2.15  insn per cycle  
>>          ( +-  5.65% )
>>     77,502,383,330      branches                  # 1381.490 M/sec           
>>          ( +-  6.18% )
>>        844,681,191      branch-misses             #    1.09% of all branches 
>>          ( +-  3.82% )
>>
>>       55.221556378 seconds time elapsed                                      
>>     ( +-  5.01% )
>>
>> - After:
>>       56603.419540      task-clock (msec)         #    1.019 CPUs utilized   
>>          ( +- 10.19% )
>>    202,217,930,479      cycles                    #    3.573 GHz             
>>          ( +- 10.69% )
>>    439,336,291,626      instructions              #    2.17  insn per cycle  
>>          ( +- 14.14% )
>>     80,538,357,447      branches                  # 1422.853 M/sec           
>>          ( +- 16.09% )
>>        776,321,622      branch-misses             #    0.96% of all branches 
>>          ( +-  3.77% )
>>
>>       55.549661409 seconds time elapsed                                      
>>     ( +- 10.44% )
>>
>> No improvement (within noise range). Note that for this workload,
>> increasing the time window too much can lead to perf degradation,
>> since it flushes the TLB *very* frequently.
> 
> I would expect this to be fairly minimal in the amount of memory that is
> retouched. We spend a bunch of time paging things in just to drop
> everything and die. However heavy memory operations like my build stress
> test do see a performance boost.
> 
> Tested-by: Alex Bennée <address@hidden>
> Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <address@hidden>
> 
> Do you have access to any aarch64 hardware? It would be nice to see if
> we could support it there as well.

I've already done some porting to other backends.
You should be able to cherry-pick from

  https://github.com/rth7680/qemu.git cputlb-resize

as I don't think the backend API has changed since v6.

(Most of my feedback that went into v7 was due to issues I encountered porting
to arm32).


r~