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: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:52:21 +0530 Message-ID: <4FEC84BD.6030304@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <168f205d-d65f-4864-99c8-363b12818a9b@zmail17.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Rik van Riel , Marcelo Tosatti , Srikar , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Peter Zijlstra , "Nikunj A. Dadhania" , KVM , LKML , Gleb Natapov , chegu vinod , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Avi Kivity , Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Jones Return-path: In-Reply-To: <168f205d-d65f-4864-99c8-363b12818a9b@zmail17.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 06/28/2012 09:30 PM, Andrew Jones wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> In summary, current PV has huge benefit on non-PLE machine. >> >> On PLE machine, the results become very sensitive to load, type of >> workload and SPIN_THRESHOLD. Also PLE interference has significant >> effect on them. But still it has slight edge over non PV. >> > > Hi Raghu, > > sorry for my slow response. I'm on vacation right now (until the > 9th of July) and I have limited access to mail. Ok. Happy Vacation :) Also, thanks for > continuing the benchmarking. Question, when you compare PLE vs. > non-PLE, are you using different machines (one with and one > without), or are you disabling its use by loading the kvm module > with the ple_gap=0 modparam as I did? Yes, I am doing the same when I say with PLE disabled and comparing the benchmarks (i.e loading kvm module with ple_gap=0). But older non-PLE results were on a different machine altogether. (I had limited access to PLE machine).