On 08/10/13 16:02, Raghavendra K T wrote: > [...] >>>> + kvm_vcpu_on_spin(vcpu); >>> >>> Could you also enable CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT for arm and >>> check if ple handler logic helps further? >>> we would ideally get one more optimization folded into ple handler if >>> you enable that. >> >> Just gave it a go, and the results are slightly (but consistently) >> worse. Over 10 runs: >> >> Without RELAX_INTERCEPT: Average run 3.3623s >> With RELAX_INTERCEPT: Average run 3.4226s >> >> Not massive, but still noticeable. Any clue? > > Is it a 4x overcommit? Probably we would have hit the code > overhead if it were small guests. Only 2x overcommit (dual core host, quad vcpu guests). > RELAX_INTERCEPT is worth enabling for large guests with > overcommits. I'll try something more aggressive as soon as I get the time. What do you call a large guest? So far, the hard limit on ARM is 8 vcpus. M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- 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
