On 09/04/2012 04:30 AM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:33:46 +0300, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/21/2012 02:25 PM, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
kernbench(lower is better)
==
base pvflushv4 %improvement
1VM48.5800
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 10:51:06 +0300, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/04/2012 04:30 AM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:33:46 +0300, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/21/2012 02:25 PM, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
kernbench(lower is better)
On 09/04/2012 11:08 AM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 10:51:06 +0300, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/04/2012 04:30 AM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:33:46 +0300, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/21/2012 02:25 PM, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
On 08/21/2012 02:25 PM, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
kernbench(lower is better)
==
base pvflushv4 %improvement
1VM48.5800 46.8513 3.55846
2VM 108.1823 104.6410 3.27346
3VM 183.2733 163.3547 10.86825
On 09/03/2012 05:33 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/21/2012 02:25 PM, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
kernbench(lower is better)
==
base pvflushv4 %improvement
1VM48.5800 46.8513 3.55846
2VM 108.1823 104.6410 3.27346
3VM
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:33:46 +0300, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/21/2012 02:25 PM, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
kernbench(lower is better)
==
base pvflushv4 %improvement
1VM48.5800 46.8513 3.55846
2VM 108.1823
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 04:55:52PM +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
Remote flushing api's does a busy wait which is fine in bare-metal
scenario. But with-in the guest, the vcpus might have been pre-empted
or blocked. In this scenario, the initator vcpu would end up
busy-waiting for a long
Remote flushing api's does a busy wait which is fine in bare-metal
scenario. But with-in the guest, the vcpus might have been pre-empted
or blocked. In this scenario, the initator vcpu would end up
busy-waiting for a long amount of time.
This was discovered in our gang scheduling test and other
