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

["Todd Deshane" <deshantm@xxxxxxxxx>]

another number

Xen 3.2.1 HVM guest, much faster than on 3.3/unstable

Elapsed Time 834.082 (3.25046)
User Time 492.68 (1.61651)
System Time 328.778 (1.78148)
Percent CPU 98 (0)
Context Switches 146272 (437.262)
Sleeps 36858 (127.805)


On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Todd Deshane <deshantm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We are continuing our Xen vs. KVM benchmarking that I presented at Xen summit.
>
> This time, we are focusing on newer versions and also planning to
> include Xen HVM
> and KVM with PV drivers results. As well as adding some more tests.
>
> I have setup Xen 3.3 from source, and am using Linux 2.6.27-rc4 for
> all the guests.
>
> Below are some raw kernbench results, which clearly show that I have a problem
> with Xen HVM. It may just be a configuration issue, but we have tried
> all that we
> could think of so far (i.e file:, instead of tap:aio). I have also
> tried xen-unstable and
> it doesn't seem to produce any better results. I am also in the
> process of trying
> kernbench on older versions of Xen HVM.
>
> here is the xm command line
> xm create /dev/null name=benchvm0 memory=2048
> kernel="/usr/lib/xen/boot/hvmloader" builder="hvm"
> device_model=/usr/lib64/xen/bin/qemu-dm
> disk=file:/root/benchvm/bin/img-perf_xen_hvm_test1/image-0.img,hda,w
> vnc=1 vncdisplay=0 vif=mac=AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:00,bridge=br0
> vif=mac=AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:7b,bridge=br1 vncviewer="yes"
> on_poweroff=destroy on_reboot=restart on_crash=preserve
>
> I will also consider an IO test, such as iozone to see if
> the disk IO problems are a cause. The dom0 cpu
> doesn't seem to be under much load at all during the
> kernbench run.
>
> System time on the kernbench run is 1/2 of the time, so does
> that suggest either disk IO or guest scheduling problem?
>
> System time on the other cases is 1/4 or less on the other
> cases.
>
> If anybody has any ideas, suggestions, or can even run Xen HVM kernbench
> vs. native on their setup to compare against that would be very helpful.
>
> The system setup is a Intel core2 dual 4 GB of ram.
> The HVM guest does run the libata driver similar to KVM with emulated drivers.
>
> Thanks,
> Todd
>
> KVM PV drivers
>
> Average Optimal load -j 4 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 527.572 (0.681337)
> User Time 404.3 (0.982141)
> System Time 122.552 (0.468636)
> Percent CPU 99 (0)
> Context Switches 116020 (180.82)
> Sleeps 31307 (94.2072)
>
>
> KVM Emulated drivers
>
> Average Optimal load -j 4 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 527.968 (0.450744)
> User Time 403.95 (0.342929)
> System Time 122.134 (0.550709)
> Percent CPU 99 (0)
> Context Switches 115907 (214.3)
> Sleeps 31302.4 (88.7175)
>
> Xen PV
>
> Average Optimal load -j 4 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 446.876 (0.130115)
> User Time 392.088 (0.339367)
> System Time 54.76 (0.391088)
> Percent CPU 99 (0)
> Context Switches 64601.4 (163.314)
> Sleeps 31214.8 (183.53)
>
>
>
> Xen HVM
>
> Average Optimal load -j 4 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 2081.71 (34.0459)
> User Time 617.36 (3.61771)
> System Time 1430.36 (28.3309)
> Percent CPU 98 (0)
> Context Switches 331843 (5283.28)
> Sleeps 37329.8 (91.538)
>
>
> KVM Native (Linux)
>
> Average Optimal load -j 8 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 216.076 (0.121778)
> User Time 381.122 (0.259557)
> System Time 43.242 (0.278783)
> Percent CPU 196 (0)
> Context Switches 75483.2 (389.988)
> Sleeps 38078.8 (354.267)
>
>
> Xen native 2.6.18.8 dom0 kernel
>
> Average Optimal load -j 8 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 228.504 (0.0808084)
> User Time 384.014 (0.657632)
> System Time 64.028 (0.733669)
> Percent CPU 195.8 (0.447214)
> Context Switches 35270.4 (264.36)
> Sleeps 39493.4 (266.222)
>



-- 
Todd Deshane
http://todddeshane.net
check out our book: http://runningxen.com

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