Re: 4.1.2 very slow without upstream patches, but fast with them, also 4.2 very slow

[Peter Maloney <peter.maloney@brockmann-consult.de>]

I also tested 4.1.3, which is fast, and both USB and graphics
passthrough work, but "xl create" gave this message the first time I
started the vm (but not the second):

libxl: error: libxl_pci.c:750:libxl_device_pci_reset The kernel doesn't
support reset from sysfs for PCI device 0000:00:12.0


0000:00:12.0 is a USB device, which works in the VM.

peter:/opt # lspci -v | grep 00:12.0
00:12.0 USB Controller: ATI Technologies Inc SB7x0/SB8x0/SB9x0 USB OHCI0
Controller (prog-if 10 [OHCI])


On 08/13/2012 08:54 PM, Peter Maloney wrote:
> So... did my 4.2-unstable test, using a fresh pull from yesterday; dom0
> is normal fast (unlike previous tests), and domU is ultra slow, but
> actually boots, and graphics card passthrough works without any patches,
> and so does the USB keyboard, but USB mouse passthrough doesn't work.
>
>
> On 08/07/2012 09:25 AM, Peter Maloney wrote:
>>> That still won't tell us which patches you did apply.
>> I applied no patches and tested, and the result was slow. And then
>> applied all patches, and it was fast. I didn't try figuring out which
>> one it was.
>>
>>
>> So I guess I'll try:
>> - the latest unstable 4.2
>> - the 4.1.3-rc (Which includes the patch Malcolm suggested)
>> - and my rpm source with half patches, 3/4 of them, etc. binary search
>> style to see which patch(es) changed the performance. But this means I
>> won't be able to narrow it down to a single patch, but only the point in
>> the long list where the most dramatic change happens, possibly depending
>> on many previous patches.
>>
>> Thanks so far, guys.
>>
>>
>> On 08/06/2012 12:31 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 06.08.12 at 12:12, Peter Maloney <peter.maloney@brockmann-consult.de> wrote:
>>>> my AMD FX-8150 system with vanilla source code is super slow, both the
>>>> dom0 and domUs. However, after I merge the upstream patches I found in
>>>> the openSUSE rpm, it runs normally.
>>> I'd be very surprised if you really just took the upstream patches,
>>> and the result was better than 4.2-rc1. After all, what upstream
>>> means is that they were taken from -unstable.
>>>
>>>> I tried 4.2-unstable and it was the same. There was no rc1 when I tested
>>>> it about 1.5 weeks ago. And 4.2 has the same horrible performance, and
>>>> obviously those patches won't work any more since the 4.2 code looks
>>>> completely reorganized, so I'm stuck with 4.1.2
>>> Obviously the upstream patches can't be applied to something
>>> that already has all those changes. Other patches, of which we
>>> unfortunately have quite a few, would be a different story.
>>>
>>>> Here is the rpm I was using at the time:
>>>> http://download.opensuse.org/update/12.1/src/xen-4.1.2_16-1.7.1.src.rpm 
>>>>
>>>> To see the list of the patches and what order to apply them, see the
>>>> spec file.
>>> That still won't tell us which patches you did apply.
>>>
>>>> Please make sure this performance issue is fixed for the 4.2 release.
>>>> And I would be happy to test whatever files you send me.
>>> The sort of report you're doing isn't that helpful. What would
>>> help is if you could narrow down which patch(es) it is that
>>> make things so much better. Giving 4.1.3-rc a try might also
>>> be worthwhile, albeit I would hope we don't have a regression
>>> in 4.2.0-rc compared to 4.1.3-rc...
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
>>> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel