On 10/08/2013 08:36 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
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).
Okay. quad vcpu seem to explain.
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.
Okay. I was referring to guests >= 32 vcpus.
May be 8vcpu guests with 2x/4x is worth trying. If we still do not
see benefit, then it is not worth enabling.
--
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
