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

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

 



On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:33:46 +0300, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> 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?
> 
Previous perf numbers suggest that in 1VM scenario flush_tlb_others_ipi
is around 2%, while for contented case its around 10%. That is what is
helping contended case.

Regards,
Nikunj

--
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