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


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

To: "Gianluca Guida" <gianluca.guida@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Poor performance on HVM (kernbench)
From: "Todd Deshane" <deshantm@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:35:30 -0400
Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <MULI@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel mailing list <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:39:10 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to :to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=qUF/Wl4iGcUknky2ROC3bD7ypQbgPAILNiopSwfGS68=; b=skzK59IOMCLCmfpW9JhnQ9Ufnt/cNVqjuFuxX/FArQdEI1bmMpTMmfENbsFHv42hi2 SZTp6L3arLA/pQiaCBNWGYB1bRWqG2V2e/qBIlEHSRXcqLx6UOhdJ/xpL4BsPiqPjhGG SNlD6xsip9TK5ncJNOf7gsXjV8K2HDrIlvrqw=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:references; b=Ffa0BZybLF5E4wzPr7VCQafpXLMROx2bZiA6vzhAo8/sW8MmOHKxOUdupqW5HDMjzB m1B3NbuzcGf9KjdGLJmwaM0P7gFBZjJqtI5vBytLaz4UGJNxjEHZNmCJAsUzndW6KJ3e 0qBoJXRTqzJ0P4NeUBSu52+KS0zAuYU+Cldn8=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <48C9367B.6090003@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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> <48C8EC48.6080507@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <48C9367B.6090003@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: deshantm@xxxxxxxxx
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Gianluca Guida
<gianluca.guida@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
> Gianluca Guida wrote:
>> Todd Deshane wrote:
>>> Xen 3.3 should be an improvement with shadow3 right?
> I made a few test, in an amd64 kernel, with shadow2 and shadow 3.
> Results attached. What you can see is that in 1 vcpu environment the two
> system compare very well (with shadow3 being 1.5% faster that shadow2,
> system time being much lower). It's disturbing that in 2 vcpus, instead, the
> shadow2 is about 11% faster. I'll try to look at that and make the shadow3
> algorithm a bit more linux-friendly but, in general, I don't think that the
> slow down was due *only* to shadow3.
> Was it a 32bit guest? PAE?

The guest is 64 bit

Can you also run kernbench on native for comparison?

We have a fairly similar setup, mine is
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU          6600  @ 2.40GHz
4 GB of Ram

How much RAM do you have (native and guest)?

Are all your tests on Xen unstable with the code changes on and off as
you suggested?

What is the backend disk type for your HVM guest?
What is the kernel in your HVM guest?

I will make the same changes to the xen unstable code and re-run
kernbench with shadow3 disabled
on my system.


Xen-devel mailing list