From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 475DEC47422 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 07:36:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.671866.1045377 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rTGkn-0004c8-4p; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 07:35:57 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 671866.1045377; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 07:35:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rTGkn-0004c1-1M; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 07:35:57 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 671866; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 07:35:55 +0000 Received: from se1-gles-sth1-in.inumbo.com ([159.253.27.254] helo=se1-gles-sth1.inumbo.com) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rTGkl-0004bv-IS for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 07:35:55 +0000 Received: from mail-wm1-f54.google.com (mail-wm1-f54.google.com [209.85.128.54]) by se1-gles-sth1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 894b1373-bc1d-11ee-8a43-1f161083a0e0; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 08:35:54 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm1-f54.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-40eacb4bfa0so926355e9.1 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:35:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from raton (lfbn-idf1-1-1403-15.w90-79.abo.wanadoo.fr. [90.79.94.15]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f19-20020a05600c155300b0040e541ddcb1sm1011930wmg.33.2024.01.25.23.35.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:35:52 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" X-Inumbo-ID: 894b1373-bc1d-11ee-8a43-1f161083a0e0 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1706254553; x=1706859353; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=MlX/IquZyKvuHc90dtJQTcywuIx0rC9GleofrUB3ERE=; b=avp0OlObR5q3lDnzS0Xwh+AxGeYKkz3pZM9SQUXsojWM7wiErLOl79QZHWc8ohkf2r OiRn8OpviQWEagwwVRJjFRqod2luHM671Zu8hDI6le5vM6Ijtm6kNtCrfYaNDbGoMLRK r3+7YzOfHnWul+vbISHpensfKoJUSK/Znk+afY5HPF/cdsIObEDQZmXhKeR/iSq0QN6Y AFpocMCvczco4z4+DTSYxzdjcVV9tf8wVtlA0ot4p/EOQtRgvQ5404F1eaCyvP32Kme5 doBYdd30oTx45aSiwmI3XO3o5w0hYuO0dBpWKTL5hV3Q/8TD0BjJoZ+ohcNzbDvSvOcU YeQA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwdDLENW7lzlydnSni1cGVN5YzS40rUlBXcuo0PlTKeW+quFDa7 zUGkb1o0iA9EMboLCeW+v7AuXQOBpn4fbrt2j5ORomi9+KJR1jQD X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGsicAVDzancTWhHu3jwViqgfcfo6UCMJ21r5H9iBZUP9BtQXy9WkmoPBdwg0QU6wFnIv7vUw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:20d5:b0:40e:4694:38a6 with SMTP id y21-20020a05600c20d500b0040e469438a6mr542748wmm.157.1706254553208; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:35:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 08:35:45 +0100 From: David Morel To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, xenia.ragiadakou@amd.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, Jan Beulich , Roger Pau =?iso-8859-1?Q?Monn=E9?= , Juergen Gross Subject: Re: AMD EPYC VM to VM performance investigation Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:21:06AM, David Morel wrote: > > I think it might be difficult to triage this if you are working on a > > Xen/Linux version that is so different from upstream > I ran some tests on a Xen 4.13.5 with a dom0 in 6.6.10, and on an XCP-ng on > the same machine, the performances are similar, a few percent better on > the recent Xen, but still pretty low for such a machine and similar to > other EPYC we looked at. I only recently went over my message and realized I typed the XCP-ng version out of the habit... The test I was talking about was actually on a Xen 4.17.3, so recent Xen and recent kernel. Sorry about that.