On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 05:25:53PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 16:52 +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> >
> > Presumably benchmarks should be done to confirm that the performance degrade
> > is acceptable.
>
> Hi Isaku,
>
> I tried this patchset, but I can't get xenheap_megabytes to work. I
> tried 32, 128, 256 and they all hit:
>
> BUG_ON(!is_xenheap_usable_memory(md))
>
> in start_kernel(). Does it work for you?
Could you try again with the attached patch?
It works with 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 and 512. But dom0 panics with 1024.
(The test box is tiger2 with 2GB memory.)
1GB xenheap requirement seems unlikely (at least for now I think)
so that I leave it unfixed.
> I also ran some kernel build
> tests to get an idea of the performance hit. A UP PV domain was less
> that 1% over my previous tests and an HVM domains was less that 1/4%
> over previous. I may be into the noise of my test results, but it does
> seem indicate that there is a small hit. If we can boot more vCPUs and
> bigger systems though, it may be a reasonable trade-off. Thanks,
Good news. thank you for testing.
--
yamahata
16712_3f8403f8ae2e_boot_load_data_start_kernel.patch
Description: Text Data
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
Home