Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] KVM in-guest performance monitoring

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

 



On 06/16/2011 07:04 PM, David Ahern wrote:

On 06/16/2011 09:59 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>  On 06/16/2011 06:34 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>>  >
>>  >   main ()
>>  >   {
>>  >       int i;
>>  >
>>  >       fork();
>>  >       fork();
>
>  What happens without the two forks?
>

you have a 1-billion instruction benchmark since there is only 1 process.


I mean in terms of the overhead. Is the overhead due to context switches being made more expensive by the pmu, or is it something else?

But there were only 337 context switches in your measurement, they couldn't possibly be so bad.
Anyway I'll investigate it.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux