[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1329327902.2293.168.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:45:02 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, pjt@...gle.com, efault@....de, venki@...gle.com,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: sched: Performance of Trade workload running inside VM
On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 23:08 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> [2012-02-15 18:24:11]:
>
> > On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 22:40 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > Ok ..let me see if these numbers highlight the problem better.
> >
> > does this translate like: I've no fscking clue,
>
> I'd mentioned a possible reason earlier which is limiting VM1 to reach higher
> utilization (which is the time it waits for cpu after wakeup):
>
> >b. In the "all VMs active" case, VM1's vcpu tasks were found to incur
> > "high" wait times when ttwo of VM1's tasks were scheduled on the same
> > CPU (i.e a VCPU task had to wait behind a sibling VCPU task for
> > obtaining CPU resource).
>
> Let me get cpu wait time data and post it by tomorrow.
>
> > but my tinker made it go away?
>
> Do you have any other suggestions for me to try?
I'm still waiting for a problem description that isn't a book.
What does the load-balancer do, why is it wrong, why does your patch
sort it etc.
I've really no idea what you're trying to do, other than make your
numbers improve (which while a noble goal, doesn't help in judging your
patch or suggesting alternative means of getting there).
--
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