Re: performance tuning, problem with paravirtualized clock

[Nikola Ciprich <extmaillist@linuxbox.cz>]

Hi Anthony!
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I would think you should get about 70% of native with what you've done 
> about.  I've not seen instabilities with CONFIG_KVM_CLOCK myself.
>
> Setting up a hugetlbfs mount and using -mem-path may give you a bit of 
> a bump too but I'd be surprised if it was more than 5%
I've tried it now, and starting kvm with -mem-path pointing to hugetlbfs 
mounted dir immediately fails and I see following message in dmesg of host:
VM: killing process qemu-system-x86
pointing to tmpfs mounted dir seems to work, I'll measure performance 
gain...

>
> The next biggest win you're going to see is using NPT (available in 
> the recent AMD Barcelona/Phenom processors).   NPT + hugetblfs should 
> get you pretty close to native (I'd reckon 95-98%).
Yup, it seemed to me  that kvm performes WAY better on my phenom based 
home desktop! I'll check that later too
>
> On the Intel side of things, you'll have to wait until the Nehalem 
> which will support EPT (which is Intel's version of NPT).
>
> Can you be specific about your guest configurations?  Are you using 
> -smp 8?
yes, I'm using -smp 8
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori





-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Register now and save $200. Hurry, offer ends at 11:59 p.m., 
Monday, April 7! Use priority code J8TLD2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone