From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: KVM performance vs. Xen
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:59:28 +0300
Message-ID: <49F9AEC0.2060909@redhat.com>
References: <49F8672E.5080507@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <49F967AE.4040905@redhat.com> <49F9AB64.20506@codemonkey.ws>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Andrew Theurer <habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:57544 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753837AbZD3N7e (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:59:34 -0400
In-Reply-To: <49F9AB64.20506@codemonkey.ws>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
>>> 1) I'm seeing about 2.3% in scheduler functions [that I recognize].
>>> Does that seems a bit excessive?
>>
>> Yes, it is.  If there is a lot of I/O, this might be due to the 
>> thread pool used for I/O.
>
> This is why I wrote the linux-aio patch.  It only reduced CPU 
> consumption by about 2% although I'm not sure if that's absolute or 
> relative.  Andrew?

Was that before or after the entire path was made copyless?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function