From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bandan Das Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:49:55 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1458339291-4093-1-git-send-email-bsd@redhat.com> <56EFB0E0.2080405@de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: tj@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, mst@redhat.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, RAPOPORT@il.ibm.com To: Christian Borntraeger Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56EFB0E0.2080405@de.ibm.com> (Christian Borntraeger's message of "Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:29:20 +0100") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Christian Borntraeger writes: > On 03/18/2016 11:14 PM, Bandan Das wrote: > [..] >> Netperf: >> Two guests running netperf in parallel. >> Without patches With patches >> >> TCP_STREAM (10^6 bits/second) 975.45 978.88 >> TCP_RR (Trans/second) 20121 18820.82 >> UDP_STREAM (10^6 bits/second) 1287.82 1184.5 >> UDP_RR (Trans/second) 20766.72 19667.08 >> Time a 4G iso download 2m 33 seconds 3m 02 seconds > > So TCP stream stays the same everything else shows a regression? Not good. > Have you an idea why this happens? I am not sure yet but my guess is the way these patches implement cgroup support. I will run some tests just with workqueues (and without these patches) and see if the newer numbers are consistent with these.