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

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

 



On 09/03/2012 05:33 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> 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?

For that matter, why do we get an improvement in the 1VM kbuild test?
All vcpus should be running most of the time, barring I/O thread activity.


-- 
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