[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <168f205d-d65f-4864-99c8-363b12818a9b@zmail17.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:00:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Srikar <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: handle last_boosted_vcpu = 0 case
----- Original Message -----
> In summary, current PV has huge benefit on non-PLE machine.
>
> On PLE machine, the results become very sensitive to load, type of
> workload and SPIN_THRESHOLD. Also PLE interference has significant
> effect on them. But still it has slight edge over non PV.
>
Hi Raghu,
sorry for my slow response. I'm on vacation right now (until the
9th of July) and I have limited access to mail. Also, thanks for
continuing the benchmarking. Question, when you compare PLE vs.
non-PLE, are you using different machines (one with and one
without), or are you disabling its use by loading the kvm module
with the ple_gap=0 modparam as I did?
Drew
--
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