On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 04:51:04PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:50:50 +0530
Raghavendra K T raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
In ple handler code, last_boosted_vcpu (lbv) variable is
serving as reference point to start when we enter.
Also statistical
On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 10:49 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 06/28/2012 06:55 PM, Vinod, Chegu wrote:
Hello,
I am just catching up on this email thread...
Perhaps one of you may be able to help answer this query.. preferably along
with some data. [BTW, I do understand the basic intent
On 06/28/2012 06:55 PM, Vinod, Chegu wrote:
Hello,
I am just catching up on this email thread...
Perhaps one of you may be able to help answer this query.. preferably along
with some data. [BTW, I do understand the basic intent behind PLE in a typical
[sweet spot] use case where there is
On 07/02/2012 08:19 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 06/28/2012 06:55 PM, Vinod, Chegu wrote:
Hello,
I am just catching up on this email thread...
Perhaps one of you may be able to help answer this query.. preferably
along with some data. [BTW, I do understand the basic intent behind
PLE in a
- Original Message -
In summary, current PV has huge benefit on non-PLE machine.
On PLE machine, the results become very sensitive to load, type of
workload and SPIN_THRESHOLD. Also PLE interference has significant
effect on them. But still it has slight edge over non PV.
Hi
On 06/28/2012 09:30 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
- Original Message -
In summary, current PV has huge benefit on non-PLE machine.
On PLE machine, the results become very sensitive to load, type of
workload and SPIN_THRESHOLD. Also PLE interference has significant
effect on them. But still
[mailto:raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:22 AM
To: Andrew Jones
Cc: Rik van Riel; Marcelo Tosatti; Srikar; Srivatsa Vaddagiri; Peter Zijlstra;
Nikunj A. Dadhania; KVM; LKML; Gleb Natapov; Vinod, Chegu; Jeremy Fitzhardinge;
Avi Kivity; Ingo Molnar
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: handle
On 06/24/2012 12:04 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/23/2012 02:30 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/22/2012 08:41 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
[...]
My run for other benchmarks did not have Rik's patches, so re-spinning
everything with that now.
Here is the detailed info on env and benchmark I am
On 06/28/2012 01:57 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/24/2012 12:04 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/23/2012 02:30 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/22/2012 08:41 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
[...]
(benchmark values will be attached in reply to this mail)
pv_benchmark_summary.bz2
Description:
On 06/21/2012 12:13 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 04:51:04PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:50:50 +0530
Raghavendra K Traghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
In ple handler code, last_boosted_vcpu (lbv) variable is
serving as reference point to start
On 06/23/2012 02:30 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/22/2012 08:41 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 04:56:08PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Here are the results from kernbench.
PS: I think we have to only take that, both the patches perform better,
than reading into actual
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 04:56:08PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Here are the results from kernbench.
PS: I think we have to only take that, both the patches perform better,
than reading into actual numbers since I am seeing more variance in
especially 3x. may be I can test with some more
On 06/22/2012 08:41 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 04:56:08PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Here are the results from kernbench.
PS: I think we have to only take that, both the patches perform better,
than reading into actual numbers since I am seeing more variance in
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 04:51:04PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:50:50 +0530
Raghavendra K T raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
In ple handler code, last_boosted_vcpu (lbv) variable is
serving as reference point to start when we enter.
Also statistical
On 06/21/2012 12:13 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 04:51:04PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:50:50 +0530
Raghavendra K Traghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
In ple handler code, last_boosted_vcpu (lbv) variable is
serving as reference point to start
On 06/21/2012 01:42 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/20/2012 02:21 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:50:50 +0530
Raghavendra K Traghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
[...]
Please let me know how it goes.
Yes, have got result today, too tired to summarize. got better
On 06/20/2012 02:21 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:50:50 +0530
Raghavendra K Traghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
In ple handler code, last_boosted_vcpu (lbv) variable is
serving as reference point to start when we enter.
Also statistical analysis (below) is showing
On 06/20/2012 04:12 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/20/2012 02:21 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
Please let me know how it goes.
Yes, have got result today, too tired to summarize. got better
performance result too. will come back again tomorrow morning.
have to post, randomized start point patch
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:50:50 +0530
Raghavendra K T raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
In ple handler code, last_boosted_vcpu (lbv) variable is
serving as reference point to start when we enter.
Also statistical analysis (below) is showing lbv is not very well
distributed with current
19 matches
Mail list logo
