All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: Performance difference between Xen versions
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 07:31:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DBE41C9.1010409@ts.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DBAFF01020000780003EEFD@vpn.id2.novell.com>

On 04/29/11 18:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 29.04.11 at 14:32, Juergen Gross<juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> comparing performance of different Xen versions with BS2000 as HVM guest
>> showed some weird data I'd like to understand.
>>
>> All measurements were done on an Intel Xeon E7220 box. We used a disk-
>> benchmark and found the cpu utilization was much higher with Xen 4.0
>> compared
>> to Xen 3.3. I did some more investigation and narrowed things down to calls
>> of
>> the hypervisor (implicit or explicit).
>>
>> Following is a table with timing data for different low-level functions, all
>> timing values are tsc ticks obtained via rdtsc:
>>
>> Xen 3.3     Xen 4.0      Function
>>         88        165      just the measurement overhead
>>        176        330      rdtsc-instruction + cli/sti
>>       5896      11044      lapic timer query
>>       7381      13519      setting lapic timer
>>       4653       8987      reload of cr3
>>       3124       5709      invlpg instruction
>>     792253     792264      wbinvd instruction
>>        748       1375      int + iret
>>       5203       9317      hypervisor yield call
>> 12598102   12597882      memory access loop
>>
>> All operations involving the hypervisor take nearly twice the time on 4.0.
>> Operations not involving the hypervisor (wbinvd and memory access loop) are
>> the same on both systems (this rules out the possibility of different rdtsc
>> behavior).
>>
>> 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!


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@ts.fujitsu.com
Domagkstr. 28                           Internet: ts.fujitsu.com
D-80807 Muenchen                 Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html

  reply	other threads:[~2011-05-02  5:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-04-29 12:32 Performance difference between Xen versions Juergen Gross
2011-04-29 13:28 ` Keir Fraser
2011-04-29 13:35   ` Juergen Gross
2011-04-29 14:58     ` Keir Fraser
2011-04-29 16:10 ` Jan Beulich
2011-05-02  5:31   ` Juergen Gross [this message]
2011-05-02  6:41     ` Keir Fraser
2011-05-02  7:23       ` Jan Beulich
2011-05-02  8:00         ` Juergen Gross
2011-05-02  8:15           ` Jan Beulich
2011-05-02  8:23             ` Juergen Gross
2011-05-02  8:49               ` Keir Fraser
2011-05-03  3:06                 ` Tian, Kevin
2011-05-06 13:49                   ` Juergen Gross
2011-05-06 14:27                     ` Jan Beulich
2011-05-11  6:08                     ` Tian, Kevin
2011-05-11  6:23                       ` Juergen Gross
2011-05-02 17:52         ` John Weekes
2011-05-02 18:12           ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-05-02 18:43             ` John Weekes
2011-05-02 19:16               ` John Weekes
2011-05-02 19:36                 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-05-02 19:54                   ` John Weekes
2011-05-03  2:16                   ` Tian, Kevin
2011-05-03  3:04                 ` Tian, Kevin
2011-05-03  3:39                   ` John Weekes
2011-05-03  7:23                     ` Tian, Kevin
     [not found]         ` <4DBF13BB.3000309@nuclearfallout.net>
2011-05-03  7:23           ` Jan Beulich

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4DBE41C9.1010409@ts.fujitsu.com \
    --to=juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.