From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Raghavendra K T Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: handle last_boosted_vcpu = 0 case Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:04:41 +0530 Message-ID: <4FE60C41.5020907@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20120619202047.26191.40429.sendpatchset@codeblue> <20120619165104.2a4574f8@annuminas.surriel.com> <4FE22E9E.7070206@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4FE304D0.5000202@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120622151149.GA9077@turtle.usersys.redhat.com> <4FE4DCEA.1050701@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Rik van Riel , Avi Kivity , Marcelo Tosatti , Srikar , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Peter Zijlstra , "Nikunj A. Dadhania" , KVM , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Gleb Natapov , chegu_vinod@hp.com, Jeremy Fitzhardinge To: Andrew Jones Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FE4DCEA.1050701@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 06/23/2012 02:30 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote: > On 06/22/2012 08:41 PM, Andrew Jones wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 04:56:08PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: >>> Here are the results from kernbench. >>> >>> PS: I think we have to only take that, both the patches perform better, >>> than reading into actual numbers since I am seeing more variance in >>> especially 3x. may be I can test with some more stable benchmark if >>> somebody points >>> [...] > can we agree like, for kernbench 1x= -j (2*#vcpu) in 1 vm. > 1.5x = -j (2*#vcpu) in 1 vm and -j (#vcpu) in other.. and so on. > also a SPIN_THRESHOLD of 4k? Please forget about 1.5x above. I am not too sure on that. > > Any ideas on benchmarks is welcome from all. > My run for other benchmarks did not have Rik's patches, so re-spinning everything with that now. Here is the detailed info on env and benchmark I am currently trying. Let me know if you have any comments ======= kernel 3.5.0-rc1 with Rik's Ple handler fix as base Machine : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X7560 @ 2.27GHz, 4 numa node, 256GB RAM, 32 core machine Host: enterprise linux gcc version 4.4.6 20120305 (Red Hat 4.4.6-4) (GCC) with test kernels Guest: fedora 16 with different built-in kernel from same source tree. 32 vcpus 8GB memory. (configs not changed with patches except for CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCK) Note: for Pv patches, SPIN_THRESHOLD is set to 4k Benchmarks: 1) kernbench: kernbench-0.50 cmd: echo "3" > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ccache -C kernbench -f -H -M -o 2*vcpu Very first run in kernbench is omitted. 2) dbench: dbench version 4.00 cmd: dbench --warmup=30 -t 120 2*vcpu 3) hackbench: https://build.opensuse.org/package/files?package=hackbench&project=benchmark hackbench.c modified with loops=10000 used hackbench with num-threads = 2* vcpu 4) Specjbb: specjbb2000-1.02 Input Properties: ramp_up_seconds = 30 measurement_seconds = 120 forcegc = true starting_number_warehouses = 1 increment_number_warehouses = 1 ending_number_warehouses = 8 5) sysbench: 0.4.12 sysbench --test=oltp --db-driver=pgsql prepare sysbench --num-threads=2*vcpu --max-requests=100000 --test=oltp --oltp-table-size=500000 --db-driver=pgsql --oltp-read-only run Note that driver for this pgsql. 6) ebizzy: release 0.3 cmd: ebizzy -S 120 - specjbb ran for 1x and 2x others mostly for 1x, 2x, 3x overcommit. - overcommit of 2x means same benchmark running on 2 guests. - sample for each overcommit is mostly 8 Note: I ran kernbench with old kernbench0.50, may be I can try kcbench with ramfs if necessary will soon come with detailed results > - Raghu