From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753244Ab1KDJQN (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2011 05:16:13 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]:37616 "EHLO mail-yw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751265Ab1KDJQL (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2011 05:16:11 -0400 Message-ID: <4EB3AD54.9050605@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:16:04 +0800 From: Xiao Guangrong User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Xiao Guangrong CC: Avi Kivity , Marcelo Tosatti , LKML , KVM Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/11] KVM: x86: optimize for writing guest page References: <4E7AF758.7060900@cn.fujitsu.com> <20111006175333.GA3959@amt.cnet> <4E8FCC37.8090409@cn.fujitsu.com> <4E91926D.8060206@redhat.com> <4E91A3AA.1000309@redhat.com> <4E940018.1010908@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <4E940018.1010908@cn.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/11/2011 04:36 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > On 10/09/2011 09:37 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 10/09/2011 02:24 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> On 10/08/2011 06:06 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote: >>>> On 10/07/2011 01:53 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 04:52:40PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote: >>>>>> This patchset is against https://github.com/avikivity/kvm.git next branch. >>>>>> >>>>>> In this version, some changes come from Avi's comments: >>>>>> - fix instruction retried for nested guest >>>>>> - skip write-flooding for the sp whose level is 1 >>>>>> - rename some functions >>>>> >>>>> Please rebase. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Marcelo, >>>> >>>> These patches can be applied without any conflict and it also works well, >>>> the current code was pulled from https://github.com/avikivity/kvm.git next branch. >>>> >>>> What problem did you meet when you applied these? :( >>> >>> I guess it was a user error - it applies cleanly here too (and pushed to next, thanks). >>> >> >> However, it seems to reduce performance. >> > > Ouch, will look into it soon. Hi Avi, I have done kernbench tests several times on my desktop, but it shows very well: before patchset: real 212.27 real 213.47 real 204.99 real 200.58 real 199.99 real 199.94 real 201.51 real 199.83 real 198.19 real 205.13 after patchset: real 199.90 real 201.89 real 194.54 real 188.71 real 185.75 real 187.70 real 188.99 real 188.53 real 186.29 real 188.25 I will test it on our server using kvm-autotest, could you share me your config file please?