This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] Re: Poor performance on HVM (kernbench)

To: deshantm@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: Poor performance on HVM (kernbench)
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:42:23 -0500
Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <MULI@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel mailing list <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:43:37 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1e16a9ed0809101422p6a58304dxaa1a92847109a518@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <1e16a9ed0809101123m71a12030v7d06501f6467f93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1e16a9ed0809101422p6a58304dxaa1a92847109a518@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20080723)
Todd Deshane wrote:
As an update, Xen HVM on Xen 3.2 on Ubuntu 8.04 from packages:

Average Optimal load -j 4 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 954.4 (4.95457)
User Time 441.744 (2.56251)
System Time 506.018 (7.45156)
Percent CPU 99 (0)
Context Switches 160222 (1113.68)
Sleeps 37604.8 (182.796)

This is actually more what would be expected of Xen 3.2 right?

It's pretty close to what I've seen. In my experience with shadow2, xen pv is about twice as fast with kernbench. You're results for a pv were:

Elapsed Time 446.876 (0.130115)

So this result is a bit higher than what I've seen, but certainly within the realm of possibility.

Xen 3.3 should be an improvement with shadow3 right?

I know it is for Windows, but there's always the possibility that it has caused a regression in Linux performance.


Anthony Liguori

Should I need to adjust the shadow_memory parameter for the guest?

I'm going to try Xen 3.2.1 from source next.


Xen-devel mailing list