From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [RFC -v5 PATCH 0/4] directed yield for Pause Loop Exiting Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:34:19 -0500 Message-ID: <4D30891B.9010104@redhat.com> References: <20110114030209.53765a0a@annuminas.surriel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kiviti , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Peter Zijlstra , Mike Galbraith , Chris Wright , ttracy@redhat.com, dshaks@redhat.com To: kvm@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46297 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757568Ab1ANRee (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:34:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110114030209.53765a0a@annuminas.surriel.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/14/2011 03:02 AM, Rik van Riel wrote: > Benchmark "results": > > Two 4-CPU KVM guests are pinned to the same 4 physical CPUs. I just discovered that I had in fact pinned the 4-CPU KVM guests to 4 HT threads across 2 cores, and the scheduler has all kinds of special magic for dealing with HT siblings. I am now rerunning the tests with the KVM guests bound to cores 0,2,4,6 to see if that makes a difference. -- All rights reversed