On 16.01.2012, at 15:20, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > * Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> [2012-01-16 04:57:45]: > >> Speaking of which - have you benchmarked performance degradation of pv >> ticket locks on bare metal? > > You mean, run kernel on bare metal with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS > enabled and compare how it performs with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS disabled > for > some workload(s)?
Yup > > In some sense, the 1x overcommitcase results posted does measure the overhead > of (pv-)spinlocks no? We don't see any overhead in that case for atleast > kernbench .. > >> Result for Non PLE machine : >> ============================ > > [snip] > >> Kernbench: >> BASE BASE+patch What is BASE really? Is BASE already with the PV spinlocks enabled? I'm having a hard time understanding which tree you're working against, since the prerequisites aren't upstream yet. Alex >> %improvement >> mean (sd) mean (sd) >> Scenario A: >> case 1x: 164.233 (16.5506) 163.584 (15.4598 0.39517 > > [snip] > >> Result for PLE machine: >> ====================== > > [snip] >> Kernbench: >> BASE BASE+patch >> %improvement >> mean (sd) mean (sd) >> Scenario A: >> case 1x: 161.263 (56.518) 159.635 (40.5621) 1.00953 > > - vatsa > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
