xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: Performance difference between Xen versions
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 07:31:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DBE41C9.1010409@ts.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DBAFF01020000780003EEFD@vpn.id2.novell.com>

On 04/29/11 18:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 29.04.11 at 14:32, Juergen Gross<juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> comparing performance of different Xen versions with BS2000 as HVM guest
>> showed some weird data I'd like to understand.
>>
>> All measurements were done on an Intel Xeon E7220 box. We used a disk-
>> benchmark and found the cpu utilization was much higher with Xen 4.0
>> compared
>> to Xen 3.3. I did some more investigation and narrowed things down to calls
>> of
>> the hypervisor (implicit or explicit).
>>
>> Following is a table with timing data for different low-level functions, all
>> timing values are tsc ticks obtained via rdtsc:
>>
>> Xen 3.3     Xen 4.0      Function
>>         88        165      just the measurement overhead
>>        176        330      rdtsc-instruction + cli/sti
>>       5896      11044      lapic timer query
>>       7381      13519      setting lapic timer
>>       4653       8987      reload of cr3
>>       3124       5709      invlpg instruction
>>     792253     792264      wbinvd instruction
>>        748       1375      int + iret
>>       5203       9317      hypervisor yield call
>> 12598102   12597882      memory access loop
>>
>> All operations involving the hypervisor take nearly twice the time on 4.0.
>> Operations not involving the hypervisor (wbinvd and memory access loop) are
>> the same on both systems (this rules out the possibility of different rdtsc
>> behavior).
>>
>> Is there any easy explanation for this? Both Xen versions are from SLES
>> (SLES11 or SLES11 SP1).
> I think cpufreq handling was off by default in 3.3, and is on by
> default on 4.0. Try turning this off, or using the performance
> governor.
Jan, you got it! With cpufreq=none Xen 4.0 has more or less the same numbers
as 3.3. Now I wonder why the default is so much slower. I looks as if the
hypervisor would run at a lower speed. I can't believe it should behave like that!


Juergen

-- 
Juergen Gross                 Principal Developer Operating Systems
TSP ES&S SWE OS6                       Telephone: +49 (0) 89 3222 2967
Fujitsu Technology Solutions              e-mail: juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com
Domagkstr. 28                           Internet: ts.fujitsu.com
D-80807 Muenchen                 Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html

  reply	other threads:[~2011-05-02  5:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-04-29 12:32 Performance difference between Xen versions Juergen Gross
2011-04-29 13:28 ` Keir Fraser
2011-04-29 13:35   ` Juergen Gross
2011-04-29 14:58     ` Keir Fraser
2011-04-29 16:10 ` Jan Beulich
2011-05-02  5:31   ` Juergen Gross [this message]
2011-05-02  6:41     ` Keir Fraser
2011-05-02  7:23       ` Jan Beulich
2011-05-02  8:00         ` Juergen Gross
2011-05-02  8:15           ` Jan Beulich
2011-05-02  8:23             ` Juergen Gross
2011-05-02  8:49               ` Keir Fraser
2011-05-03  3:06                 ` Tian, Kevin
2011-05-06 13:49                   ` Juergen Gross
2011-05-06 14:27                     ` Jan Beulich
2011-05-11  6:08                     ` Tian, Kevin
2011-05-11  6:23                       ` Juergen Gross
2011-05-02 17:52         ` John Weekes
2011-05-02 18:12           ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-05-02 18:43             ` John Weekes
2011-05-02 19:16               ` John Weekes
2011-05-02 19:36                 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-05-02 19:54                   ` John Weekes
2011-05-03  2:16                   ` Tian, Kevin
2011-05-03  3:04                 ` Tian, Kevin
2011-05-03  3:39                   ` John Weekes
2011-05-03  7:23                     ` Tian, Kevin
     [not found]         ` <4DBF13BB.3000309@nuclearfallout.net>
2011-05-03  7:23           ` Jan Beulich

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4DBE41C9.1010409@ts.fujitsu.com \
    --to=juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).