From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757185Ab1KKDmw (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:42:52 -0500
Received: from mail-pz0-f42.google.com ([209.85.210.42]:39684 "EHLO
	mail-pz0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756921Ab1KKDmt (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:42:49 -0500
Message-ID: <4EBC99B1.1030008@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:42:41 +0800
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiao.grong@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
CC: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
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> <4EB3AD54.9050605@gmail.com> <4EB6A958.9030007@redhat.com> <4EBBD190.2020404@gmail.com> <4EBBDA3B.9040504@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EBBDA3B.9040504@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 11/10/2011 10:05 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 11/10/2011 03:28 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>
>> I have tested RHEL.6.1 setup/boot/reboot/shutdown and the complete
>> output of scan_results.py is attached.
>>
>> The result shows the performance is improved:
>> before:            After:
>> 570            529
>> 555            538
>> 552            531
>> 546            528
>> 553            559
>> 553            527
>> 550            523
>> 553            533
>> 547            538
>> 550            526
>>
>> How do you think about it? :)
>
> Well, either I was sloppy in my measurements, or maybe RHEL 6 is very
> different from F9 (unlikely).  I'll measure it again and see.
>

Thanks for your time. :)

> btw, this is with ept=0, yes?
>

Yeah.