Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] KVM paravirt remote flush tlb

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

 



On 08/21/2012 02:25 PM, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
> 
> kernbench(lower is better)
> ==========================
>          base      pvflushv4      %improvement
> 1VM    48.5800       46.8513       3.55846
> 2VM   108.1823      104.6410       3.27346
> 3VM   183.2733      163.3547      10.86825
> 
> ebizzy(higher is better)
> ========================
>          base         pvflushv4      %improvement
> 1VM     2414.5000     2089.8750     -13.44481
> 2VM     2167.6250     2371.7500      9.41699
> 3VM     1600.1111     2102.5556     31.40060
> 

The regression is worrying.  We're improving the contended case at the
cost of the non-contended case, this is usually the wrong thing to do.
Do we have any clear idea of the cause of the regression?


-- 
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