From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Juergen Gross Subject: Re: Poor HVM performance with 8 vcpus Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:45:27 +0200 Message-ID: <4ACC7F57.2040702@ts.fujitsu.com> References: <4ACC3B49.4060500@ts.fujitsu.com> <4FA716B1526C7C4DB0375C6DADBC4EA342A68E5C92@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> <20091007091254.GA20579@whitby.uk.xensource.com> <4ACC6219.4010305@ts.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: George Dunlap Cc: Ian Pratt , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Tim Deegan , James Harper List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org George Dunlap wrote: > Jeurgen, > > I think this problem is a good candidate for xentrace/xenalyze. If > you take a 30-second trace (xentrace -D -e all -T 30 > /tmp/[traceid].trace) while the benchmark is at its heaviest, and then > analyze it using xenalyze > (http://xenbits.xensource.com/ext/xenalyze.hg), it should show up > whether the shadow performance is due to brute-force search or > something else. > > If you're using 3.3, you'll have to apply the back-patch to xenalyze > to make it work properly. Patches don't apply cleanly, build fails with error even without patches due to incorrect format strings. Juergen -- Juergen Gross Principal Developer Operating Systems TSP ES&S SWE OS6 Telephone: +49 (0) 89 636 47950 Fujitsu Technolgy Solutions e-mail: juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 Internet: ts.fujitsu.com D-81739 Muenchen Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html