Re: VirtIO vs Emulation Netperf benchmark results

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11 October 2012 11:27, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/10/12 10:55, Alexander Graf wrote
>> On 11.10.2012, at 11:46, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> - Our memory bandwidth is reduced by the number of TLB entries we waste
>>> by not using section mappings instead of 4kB pages. Running hackbench on
>>> a guest shows quite a slowdown that should mostly go away if/when
>>> userspace switches to huge pages as backing store. I expect virtio to
>>> suffer from the same problem.
>>
>> That one should be in a completely different ballpark. I'd be very
> surprised if you get more than 10% slowdowns in TLB miss intensive
> workloads. Definitely not as low of a hanging fruit as we see here.

> The A15 uses separate TLBs for stage-1 and stage-2 translation, which
> means that each random memory access costs us two TLBs, effectively
> reducing the efficiency of the translation hardware by 50%.
>
> Using 2MB sections as the backing store (stage-2) should definitely be a
> quite an improvement.

Having done a quick google and looked at the QEMU code, I think that
hugepage support should be a purely kernel-side thing: if you add
transparent hugepage support then QEMU will just DTRT without special
config.

(Alex: does that sound right?)

thanks
-- PMM
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm


[Index of Archives]     [Linux KVM]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux