| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH][RFC]Provide fast write emulation path to release
>From: Tim Deegan [mailto:Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: 2008年1月22日 17:26
>
>At 10:20 +0800 on 22 Jan (1200997253), Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> We also did series of tests on 32/32pae/32e: (host is 32e)
>> 32 32pae 32e
>> ----Linux----
>> kernel build +1% +0.86% +1.9%
>> Specjbb +0.9% +1.61% +0.32%
>>
>> ----XP----
>> Sysbench N/A -0.05% -0.32%(*)
>>
>> * Sysbench score is not very stable on 32e guest, with up
>> to 6% variation observed in 5 rounds running. 32pae is
>> stable. 32 XP image was unfortunately corrupted at test
>> cycle, so not test yet. Don't want to hold here from getting
>> early comments. :-)
>>
>> I thought the performance gain should be straightforward
>> with this patch, and thus would like to know comment
>> like:
>> - Is it a right direction?
>
>Looks good to me!
>
>> - Is there anything wrong or missed in patch?
>
>Nothing fundamental that I can see by reading through it. One
>thing I'd
>change is to avoid introducing "vfn": a virtual address >> PAGE_SIZE is
>just a "page number".
OK.
>
>> - Any more benchmarks should we test?
>
>Anything and everything. :) Specially multi-vcpu mixed operations
>(e.g. kernel compile + ltp + network traffic) while doing live migrate.
>Even when they look as clean as this one, changes in the shadow fault
>handler tend to chase out implicit/forgotten assumptions.
>
Agree. I asked the question because the combinations are really too many
and usually we try those tests. So for the case you mentioned when doing
live migrate, can I consider the stability/correctness is the major test goal
since individual score may vary a lot in such complex environment?
Thanks,
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home