On 05/07/2012 01:58 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: > On 05/07/2012 02:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 05/07/2012 11:29 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> This is looking pretty good and complete now - any objections >>> from anyone to trying this out in a separate x86 topic tree? >> >> No objections, instead an >> >> Acked-by: Avi Kivity<avi@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > > Thank you. > > Here is a benchmark result with the patches. > > 3 guests with 8VCPU, 8GB RAM, 1 used for kernbench > (kernbench -f -H -M -o 20) other for cpuhog (shell script while > true with an instruction) > > unpinned scenario > 1x: no hogs > 2x: 8hogs in one guest > 3x: 8hogs each in two guest > > BASE: 3.4-rc4 vanilla with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCK=n > BASE+patch: 3.4-rc4 + debugfs + pv patches with > CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCK=y > > Machine : IBM xSeries with Intel(R) Xeon(R) x5570 2.93GHz CPU (Non > PLE) with 8 core , 64GB RAM > > (Less is better. Below is time elapsed in sec for x86_64_defconfig > (3+3 runs)). > > BASE BASE+patch %improvement > mean (sd) mean (sd) > case 1x: 66.0566 (74.0304) 61.3233 (68.8299) 7.16552 > case 2x: 1253.2 (1795.74) 131.606 (137.358) 89.4984 > case 3x: 3431.04 (5297.26) 134.964 (149.861) 96.0664 > You're calculating the improvement incorrectly. In the last case, it's not 96%, rather it's 2400% (25x). Similarly the second case is about 900% faster. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
