From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: julien.grall@citrix.com (Julien Grall) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:10:08 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v4 00/20] xen/arm64: Add support for 64KB page in Linux In-Reply-To: <55F6B8CC.5090406@citrix.com> References: <1441640038-23615-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@citrix.com> <55F68BC9.6020509@citrix.com> <55F6A437.3040403@citrix.com> <55F6A9DB.8040503@citrix.com> <55F6ADAE.1010609@citrix.com> <55F6B8CC.5090406@citrix.com> Message-ID: <55FC1B40.9000401@citrix.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Roger, On 14/09/15 13:08, Roger Pau Monn? wrote: > Well, absolute numbers together with the standard deviation are IMHO the > best way to provide those figures (ie: see ministat(1) output for > example), but percentages should also be fine. > > I'm just interested in knowing the performance difference between having > this patches applied or not when using 4KB pages on the frontend and the > backend. I did some benchmark: DOM0: 1 VCPU, 4G of RAM based on 4.3-rc1 without this series GUEST: 4 VPUs, 4G of RAM, second disk associate to a nullbk device I used fio with the following options 42sh> fio --name=test --ioengine=libaio --rw=read --numjobs=8 \ --iodepth=32 --time_based=1 --runtime=30 --bs=4KB \ --filename=/dev/xvdb--direct=1 --group_reporting=1 --iodepth_batch=16 The guest is also based on 4.3-rc1 with and without the series. The overhead with my series is about 0.56%. Regards, -- Julien Grall From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753903AbbIROLZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:11:25 -0400 Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:23880 "EHLO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751823AbbIROLX (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:11:23 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,553,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="304547804" Message-ID: <55FC1B40.9000401@citrix.com> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:10:08 +0100 From: Julien Grall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?Um9nZXIgUGF1IE1vbm7DqQ==?= , CC: , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/20] xen/arm64: Add support for 64KB page in Linux References: <1441640038-23615-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@citrix.com> <55F68BC9.6020509@citrix.com> <55F6A437.3040403@citrix.com> <55F6A9DB.8040503@citrix.com> <55F6ADAE.1010609@citrix.com> <55F6B8CC.5090406@citrix.com> In-Reply-To: <55F6B8CC.5090406@citrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-DLP: MIA2 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Roger, On 14/09/15 13:08, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > Well, absolute numbers together with the standard deviation are IMHO the > best way to provide those figures (ie: see ministat(1) output for > example), but percentages should also be fine. > > I'm just interested in knowing the performance difference between having > this patches applied or not when using 4KB pages on the frontend and the > backend. I did some benchmark: DOM0: 1 VCPU, 4G of RAM based on 4.3-rc1 without this series GUEST: 4 VPUs, 4G of RAM, second disk associate to a nullbk device I used fio with the following options 42sh> fio --name=test --ioengine=libaio --rw=read --numjobs=8 \ --iodepth=32 --time_based=1 --runtime=30 --bs=4KB \ --filename=/dev/xvdb--direct=1 --group_reporting=1 --iodepth_batch=16 The guest is also based on 4.3-rc1 with and without the series. The overhead with my series is about 0.56%. Regards, -- Julien Grall