[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EF1B85F.7060105@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:43:43 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, peterz@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Gang scheduling in CFS
On 12/21/2011 12:39 PM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:23:26 +0100, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> > * Nikunj A. Dadhania <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > So could we please approach this from the benchmarked workload
> > angle first? The highest improvement is in ebizzy:
> >
> > > ebizzy 2vm (improved 15 times, i.e. 1520%)
> >
> > What's behind this huge speedup? Does ebizzy use user-space
> > spinlocks perhaps? Could we do something on the user-space side
> > to get a similar speedup?
> >
> This is from the perf run on the host:
>
> Baseline:
>
> 16.22% qemu-kvm [kvm_intel] [k] free_kvm_area
> 8.27% qemu-kvm [kvm] [k] start_apic_timer
> 7.53% qemu-kvm [kvm] [k] kvm_put_guest_fpu
>
> Gang:
>
> 24.44% qemu-kvm [kvm_intel] [k] free_kvm_area
> 13.42% qemu-kvm [kvm] [k] start_apic_timer
> 9.91% qemu-kvm [kvm] [k] kvm_put_guest_fpu
>
> Ingo, Avi, I am not getting anything obvious from this. Any ideas?
>
Looks like perf is confused, this sometimes happens if you rebuild the
kernel but only rmmod/insmod kvm. Try a clean build + boot.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists