From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: Performance difference between Xen versions Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 08:23:03 +0100 Message-ID: <4DBFC977020000780003F537@vpn.id2.novell.com> References: <4DBE41C9.1010409@ts.fujitsu.com> <4DBE7819020000780003F1B6@vpn.id2.novell.com> <4DBF13BB.3000309@nuclearfallout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4DBF13BB.3000309@nuclearfallout.net> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: John Weekes Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 02.05.11 at 22:27, John Weekes = wrote: > On 5/2/2011 12:23 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> Correct. I generally found the default threshold of the ondemand >> governor nor very suitable for optimal performance of short lived >> jobs, and boot all of my systems with "cpufreq=3Dxen:ondemand,threshold= =3D20". >=20 > Just sending you a quick note here to let you know that "threshold=3D20"= =20 > apparently isn't a valid option in 4.1. "up_threshold=3D20" is what's=20 > needed there, instead. It looks like this was changed in 2009:=20 > http://xenbits.xensource.com/hg/staging/xen-4.1-testing.hg/rev/ce391986ce= 35=20 >=20 > The threshold can also be changed with "xenpm set-up-threshold" at = runtime. Indeed, thanks for pointing that out. I must not have updated my boot loader settings in that respect for a very long time... And Xen should probably warn about unrecognized options (preparing a patch as I write this). Jan