Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v10 18/19] pvqspinlock, x86: Enable PV qspinlock PV for KVM

[Waiman Long <waiman.long@xxxxxx>]

On 05/07/2014 03:07 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > Raghavendra KT had done some performance testing on this patch with
> > the following results:
> >
> > Overall we are seeing good improvement for pv-unfair version.
> >
> > System: 32 cpu sandybridge with HT on (4 node with 32 GB each)
> > Guest : 8GB with 16 vcpu/VM.
> > Average was taken over 8-10 data points.
> >
> > Base = 3.15-rc2  with PRAVIRT_SPINLOCK = y
> >
> > A = 3.15-rc2 + qspinlock v9 patch with QUEUE_SPINLOCK = y
> > PRAVIRT_SPINLOCK = y PARAVIRT_UNFAIR_LOCKS = y (unfair lock)
> >
> > B =  3.15-rc2 + qspinlock v9 patch with QUEUE_SPINLOCK = y
> > PRAVIRT_SPINLOCK = n PARAVIRT_UNFAIR_LOCKS = n
> > (queue spinlock without paravirt)
> >
> > C = 3.15-rc2 + qspinlock v9 patch with  QUEUE_SPINLOCK = y
> > PRAVIRT_SPINLOCK = y  PARAVIRT_UNFAIR_LOCKS = n
> > (queue spinlock with paravirt)
> Could you do s/PRAVIRT/PARAVIRT/ please?
Sorry for the typo, I didn't check the text carefully enough when I 
cut-and-paste it from Raghavendra's email.
> > Ebizzy %improvements
> > ====================
> > overcommit  A            B            C
> > 0.5x     4.4265        2.0611       1.5824
> > 1.0x     0.9015       -7.7828       4.5443
> > 1.5x    46.1162       -2.9845      -3.5046
> > 2.0x    99.8150       -2.7116       4.7461
> Considering B sucks
Yes, I don't expect the plain qspinlock code will perform well in a 
guest without either unfair or pvspinlock support.
-Longman

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel