Messages in this thread | | | From | Nikunj A Dadhania <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Gang scheduling in CFS | Date | Mon, 02 Jan 2012 09:50:30 +0530 |
| |
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 07:51:15 +0530, Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:40:06 +0530, Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:51:47 +0100, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > > > > * Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > The first part appears to be unrelated to ebizzy itself - it's > > > > the kunmap_atomic() flushing ptes. It could be eliminated by > > > > switching to a non-highmem kernel, or by allocating more PTEs > > > > for kmap_atomic() and batching the flush. > > > > > > Nikunj, please only run pure 64-bit/64-bit combinations - by the > > > time any fix goes upstream and trickles down to distros 32-bit > > > guests will be even less relevant than they are today. > > > > > Sure Ingo, got a 64bit guest working yesterday and I am in process of > > getting the benchmark numbers for the same. > > > Here is the results collected from the 64bit VM runs. > [...]
PLE worst case:
> > dbench 8vm (degraded -8%) > | dbench| 2.27 | 2.09 | -8 | [...] > dbench needs some more love, i will get the perf top caller for > that. >
Baseline: 75.18% init [kernel.kallsyms] [k] native_safe_halt 23.32% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] native_safe_halt
Gang V2: 73.21% init [kernel.kallsyms] [k] native_safe_halt 25.74% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] native_safe_halt
That does not give much clue :( Comments?
> non-PLE - Test Setup: > > dbench 8vm (degraded -30%) > | dbench| 2.01 | 1.38 | -30 |
Baseline: 57.75% init [kernel.kallsyms] [k] native_safe_halt 40.88% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] native_safe_halt
Gang V2: 56.25% init [kernel.kallsyms] [k] native_safe_halt 42.84% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] native_safe_halt
Similar comparison here.
Regards Nikunj
| |