Re: [Xen-devel] Poor HVM performance with 8 vcpus

[George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Format strings... are you building this on 64-bit, then?  If so, would
you be willing to help me test a 64-bit-friendly version, if I do the
work of making xenalyze capable of being compiled either under x64 or
x32?  I don't have a 64-bit environment handy, and don't have time to
set one up just for this purpose.

Sorry for the patches not applying cleanly.  I've now updated the
back-patches, so if you do a pull they should apply.  Let me know if
you have any trouble.

 -George

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Juergen Gross
<juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> George Dunlap wrote:
>> Jeurgen,
>>
>> I think this problem is a good candidate for xentrace/xenalyze.  If
>> you take a 30-second trace (xentrace -D -e all -T 30
>> /tmp/[traceid].trace) while the benchmark is at its heaviest, and then
>> analyze it using xenalyze
>> (http://xenbits.xensource.com/ext/xenalyze.hg), it should show up
>> whether the shadow performance is due to brute-force search or
>> something else.
>>
>> If you're using 3.3, you'll have to apply the back-patch to xenalyze
>> to make it work properly.
>
> Patches don't apply cleanly, build fails with error even without patches due
> to incorrect format strings.
>
>
> Juergen
>
> --
> Juergen Gross                 Principal Developer Operating Systems
> TSP ES&S SWE OS6                       Telephone: +49 (0) 89 636 47950
> Fujitsu Technolgy Solutions               e-mail: juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Otto-Hahn-Ring 6                        Internet: ts.fujitsu.com
> D-81739 Muenchen                 Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel