[XenPPC] Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 3.1.1 -- initial patchqueue

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We're using mercurial patchqueues. Mercurial version 0.9.1. I've just cloned
and applied the patch queue from scratch with no problems.

 -- Keir

On 10/9/07 13:28, "Ben Guthro" <bguthro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Also - what tool are you using to apply these patches?
> 
> mercurial queues seem to be incompatible with some of the non utf-8
> characters in some of the patches:
> 
> applying 15075-5efb46bfbcac
> applying 15076-9ec165fa8128
> applying 15077-711bfe07999b
> applying 15078-6145e5508d6b
> abort: decoding near 'Ingard Mevïg <ingard': 'utf8' codec can't decode
> bytes in position 186-188: invalid data!
> transaction abort!
> rollback completed
> 
> Ben Guthro wrote:
>> Keir Fraser wrote:
>>> On 10/9/07 13:03, "Ben Guthro" <bguthro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 15185-1f8fb764f843
>>>> http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg?rev/1f8fb764f843
>>> I'm inclined not to backport this one.
>>> 
>> If I recall - It applied against our 3.1 tree without any
>> backporting...we just exported, and applied it. It increased
>> performance on Caneland machines greatly. Test results against our 3.1
>> based product below:
>> 
>> <test results>
>> At Ben's request, I did a quick evaluation of the APIC TPR patch for
>> Caneland.
>> I used yesterday's build to establish a baseline for booting, running
>> SPECjbb2005, and
>> netperf on a SMP XP guest. I then repeated the tests with a custom
>> kernel. The patch
>> showed significant improvement for 2 of the 3 tests I used. Here are
>> the results:
>> 
>> Test 20070816 Patch % Improvement
>> Boot time - Seconds 62.6 40.5 35%
>> SPECjbb2005 OPs/Sec 35216 35686 1%
>> TCP XMIT (MBits/sec) 70.2 309.5 341%
>> TCP RCV (MBits/Sec) 122.3 423.5 246%
>> 
>> These tests were done on a Caneland, with 4 quad-core sockets and 32GB
>> of memory.
>> The guest is Windows XP Professional with SP2, 2 CPUs, 2GB memory.
>> This afternoon,
>> I'll repeat the experiment on a non-Caneland machine to see if there
>> are any
>> side effects.
>> 
>> </test results>
>> 
>>> The two Linux changesets are not applicable to 3.1.
>> Yes, of course...my mistake. I forgot to weed out my "unstable-only"
>> patches from the list.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 



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