On 01/03/2011 10:21 PM, Zhai, Edwin wrote:
Riel,
Thanks for your patch. I have changed the ple_gap to 128 on xen side,
but forget the patch for KVM:(
A little bit big is no harm, but more perf data is better.
So should I resend the patch with the ple_gap default
changed to 128, or are you
On 01/04/2011 04:18 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 01/03/2011 10:21 PM, Zhai, Edwin wrote:
Riel,
Thanks for your patch. I have changed the ple_gap to 128 on xen side,
but forget the patch for KVM:(
A little bit big is no harm, but more perf data is better.
So should I resend the patch with the
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/04/2011 04:18 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
So should I resend the patch with the ple_gap default
changed to 128, or are you willing to ack the current
patch?
I think 128 is safer given than 41 was too low. We have to take into
account newer cpus and slower
On some CPUs, a ple_gap of 41 is simply insufficient to ever trigger
PLE exits, even with the minimalistic PLE test from kvm-unit-tests.
http://git.kernel.org/?p=virt/kvm/kvm-unit-tests.git;a=commitdiff;h=eda71b28fa122203e316483b35f37aaacd42f545
For example, the Xeon X5670 CPU needs a ple_gap of
Riel,
Thanks for your patch. I have changed the ple_gap to 128 on xen side,
but forget the patch for KVM:(
A little bit big is no harm, but more perf data is better.
Rik van Riel wrote:
On some CPUs, a ple_gap of 41 is simply insufficient to ever trigger
PLE exits, even with the
