From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gordan Bobic <gordan@bobich.net>
Subject: Re: Virt overehead with HT [was: Re: Xen 4.5
 development update]
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:32:42 +0100
Message-ID: <53C4062A.3040403@bobich.net>
References: <20140701164347.61662A7843@laptop.dumpdata.com>
	<1405354372.29306.687.camel@Solace>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <gordan@bobich.net>) id 1X6jBF-0006xf-Ty
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:32:46 +0000
In-Reply-To: <1405354372.29306.687.camel@Solace>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>, konrad.wilk@oracle.com
Cc: Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerwall@citrix.com>, Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@citrix.com>, "stefano.stabellini@citrix.com" <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 07/14/2014 05:12 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> [Sorry to the ones that will receive this mail twice, but I managed to
> drop xen-devel when replying the first time :-(]
>
> On mar, 2014-07-01 at 12:43 -0400, konrad.wilk@oracle.com wrote:
>> == x86 ==
>
>> *  HT enabled, virtualization overhead is high (Xen 4.4) (none)
>>     kernbench demonstrated it
>>     looking and tracing it
>>    -  Dario Faggioli
>>
> I spent a few time running kernbench on different boxes and with
> different configurations. After all this, here's what I found.
>
> So, on a non-NUMA, HT and EPT capable box, both BAREMETAL and HVM case
> were using 8G RAM and 8 CPUs/VCPUs. HT was enabled in BIOS:
>
> Elapsed(stddev)   BAREMETAL             HVM
> kernbench -j4     31.604 (0.0963328)    34.078 (0.168582)
> kernbench -j8     26.586 (0.145705)     26.672 (0.0432435)
> kernbench -j      27.358 (0.440307)     27.49 (0.364897)
>
> With HT disabled in BIOS (which means only 4 CPUs for both):
> Elapsed(stddev)   BAREMETAL             HVM
> kernbench -j4     57.754 (0.0642651)    56.46 (0.0578792)
> kernbench -j8     31.228 (0.0775887)    31.362 (0.210998)
> kernbench -j      32.316 (0.0270185)    33.084 (0.600442)

Just to make sure I'm reading this right - _disabling_ HT causes a near 
50% performance drop?