From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Kinzler Subject: Re: Poor performance with Linux 3.x as dom0 Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 12:46:56 +0200 Message-ID: <4FA26220.40205@hfp.de> References: <4FA1328B.6070602@hfp.de> <4FA13708.4050202@cantab.net> <4FA16875.5020801@hfp.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: George Dunlap Cc: David Vrabel , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 03.05.2012 10:32, George Dunlap wrote: >>> Can you apply 7eb7ce4d2e8991aff4ecb71a81949a907ca755ac "xen: correctly >>> check for pending events when restoring irq flags"[1] and see how much >>> it helps? >> There is some minor improvement - but it is still far away from xenified >> 2.6.34.10. > Just FYI, the reason Ian suggested making the same comparison for > native is that the performance of linux overall on bare-metal has also > suffered since 2.6.34. It's likely that a non-trivial amount of the > performance regression is due to moving from 2.6.34 to 3.{2,3}, over > and above whatever regressions may have happened when moving from > xenified to pvops. I took his suggestion serious - and actually I had performed these tests (see my other post). Unfortunately, the minor loss on bare-metal and the huge loss on xenified 2.6.34 vs pvops 3.x show that the problem is clearly with the Xen changes and not the bare-metal changes. Regards Andreas