Xen project Mailing List

Re: [Xen-devel] Performance difference between Xen versions

From: Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 10:00:38 +0200

Cc: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Delivery-date: Mon, 02 May 2011 01:01:43 -0700

Domainkey-signature: s=s1536a; d=ts.fujitsu.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-SBRSScore:X-IronPort-AV:Received:X-IronPort-AV: Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization: User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=BKFDEoomhNc/IB02wGTE14sY6vUpNTYYozkiNpec9rilS1EMwxzUtgzg Z2wmmApPcT1yxHu4AvrvpYm5HEG2DTbiquUOGHahGfp5sYq85DKCs3e15 dRl7J7KxVv3ZoBKPwT2orEBBNuul1rGmc1Pk8jk8NNyUV+g1Nh1NYk3G+ yJOA75OduzciIghfB+YcowQW0g3xi1C8hYoVoUCclIITib0l4c20rVIqN zQ6bcxlZD0LkKPYFHfowl74tnMlQ4;

List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>

On 05/02/11 09:23, Jan Beulich wrote:

On 02.05.11 at 08:41, Keir Fraser<keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:

On 02/05/2011 06:31, "Juergen Gross"<juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:

Is there any easy explanation for this? Both Xen versions are from SLES
(SLES11 or SLES11 SP1).

I think cpufreq handling was off by default in 3.3, and is on by
default on 4.0. Try turning this off, or using the performance
governor.

Jan, you got it! With cpufreq=none Xen 4.0 has more or less the same numbers
as 3.3. Now I wonder why the default is so much slower. I looks as if the
hypervisor would run at a lower speed. I can't believe it should behave like
that!

It runs at lower frequency unless your test offers sufficient load over a
long enough time period. Short microbenchmarks are probably finished before
the frequency governor can react.

Correct. I generally found the default threshold of the ondemand
governor nor very suitable for optimal performance of short lived
jobs, and boot all of my systems with "cpufreq=xen:ondemand,threshold=20".

Thanks, Keir and Jan! You both helped me a lot! I think the short term solution for our problem is to disable the cpufreq governor on our BS2000 machines. On the long run I'd like to make the cpufreq governor a feature of the cpupool. This would enable an administrator of a large Xen machine with a heterogeneous load to specify which domains should run at full speed and which are allowed to save energy at the cost of latency. What do you think? Juergen -- Juergen Gross Principal Developer Operating Systems TSP ES&S SWE OS6 Telephone: +49 (0) 89 3222 2967 Fujitsu Technology Solutions e-mail: juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Domagkstr. 28 Internet: ts.fujitsu.com D-80807 Muenchen Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

©2013 Xen Project, A Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. All Rights Reserved.
Linux Foundation is a registered trademark of The Linux Foundation.
Xen Project is a trademark of The Linux Foundation.