On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:48:57PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote: > > Krishna Kumar2/India/IBM wrote on 10/28/2010 10:44:14 AM: > > > > > > > > Results for UDP BW tests (unidirectional, sum across > > > > > > 3 iterations, each iteration of 45 seconds, default > > > > > > netperf, vhosts bound to cpus 0-3; no other tuning): > > > > > > > > > > Is binding vhost threads to CPUs really required? > > > > > What happens if we let the scheduler do its job? > > > > > > > > Nothing drastic, I remember BW% and SD% both improved a > > > > bit as a result of binding. > > > > > > If there's a significant improvement this would mean that > > > we need to rethink the vhost-net interaction with the scheduler. > > > > I will get a test run with and without binding and post the > > results later today. > > Correction: The result with binding is is much better for > SD/CPU compared to without-binding: Can you pls ty finding out why that is? Is some thread bouncing between CPUs? Does a wrong numa node get picked up? In practice users are very unlikely to pin threads to CPUs. -- MST -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
