From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Samuel Thibault Subject: Re: Benchmarks of Linux based stubdom Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:39:20 +0100 Message-ID: <20111117163920.GF9627@type.bordeaux.inria.fr> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jiageng Yu Cc: "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Jiageng Yu, le Fri 18 Nov 2011 00:17:15 +0800, a écrit : >    Since the periodic achievement is obtained in Linux based stubdom project, I > am very interesting in the benchmarks of Linux stubdom. To have a good > comparison with mini-os based stubdom, I want to do the same benchmarks as you > did in http://www.xen.org/files/xensummitboston08/SamThibault_XenSummit.pdf. > Please offer me the tools and methods you had used to measure the mini-os based > stubdom. Any details would be thankful. There is not too much fancy in there :) - Inb (Kcy) is maybe the fancy part: the measurement was made with assembly bits, basically: rdtsc; inb; rdtsc, i.e. something like: unsigned long t1, t2; __asm__ volatile("rdtsc" : "=A" (t1)) inb(0x80); __asm__ volatile("rdtsc" : "=A" (t2)) - Boot time is from xm create up to "foo login:" prompt. - Disk performance was measured as seen from the guest, I don't remember exactly how, probably with a simple program working on /dev/xvdb with O_DIRECT. The CPU% was read from xm top. - Net performance was measure as seen from the guest, probably with netperf. The CPU% was also read from xm top. Note the use of the e1000 virtual device, which iirc performed best at the time. Samuel