Things may be more clear when you see ttime for the guest on 1st level. I
suspect you see the missing cycles there. It's not 2nd level CP doing the
hard work but 1st level.
Rob
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive
The JIT for example uses polling to sample the state. It sets a timer to
pop in a few ms and goes to sleep. But since that state change and timer
interrupt reflection isn't in hardware the cost appears excessive. If you
would be computing pi second level in Linux it may still be pretty decent.
And
Hi Rob,
thanks for the reply. The performance of Linux under a second level VM always
seemed unpredictable to me but after reading your response I started seeing a
pattern: whenever I had a poorly performing application on Linux on a second
level VM, there was always some kind of networking
And because the optimizer uses elapsed time rather than cpu time it keeps
recompiling classes and kind of digs is own grave. You might try without the
optimizer on 2nd level Linux.
I wrote a simple benchmark that just prints a number of lines on the console.
Java uses about 180 times more
On Apr 17, 2015 9:40 AM, Pavelka, Tomas tomas.pave...@ca.com wrote:
This is probably too specialist topic for general consumption.
I find this pretty fascinating, not sure about the others. If no one else
replies let's move this offline.
Yes me too. But i have that with most exotic
On Friday, 04/17/2015 at 02:37 EDT, Pavelka, Tomas
tomas.pave...@ca.com wrote:
I just want to ensure I am understanding correctly what your are saying:
Is it
true that waits under software SIE burn CPU where the same waits under
hardware
SIE do not? That would explain a lot of the performance
