Hi, All
I’m using lat_rpc (one workload in LMBench) to measure the
inter-process communication latency between two processes
(client/server program). In linux guest in KVM, if binding the client
and server apps to separate cores, the latency is much worse than that
binding the client and server
So, far. I gave another try to this.
After correcting permissions...
When you create a VM (using qemu-kvm 1.1 or 1.2, with a modern
libvirtd ) you get this:
qemu-kvm: virtio_pci_set_host_notifier_internal: unable to init event notifier:
vhost VQ 0 notifier binding failed: 38
qemu-kvm: unable
On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 09:09:29 PM George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Vadim Rozenfeld vroze...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:13:12 PM George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Vadim Rozenfeld vroze...@redhat.com
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Vadim Rozenfeld vroze...@redhat.com wrote:
I've also added +hv_relaxed since then, but this is the command I'm
I would suggest activating relaxed timing for all W2K8R2/Win7 guests.
Is there any place I can read up on the downsides of this for Linux,
or is Just
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:45:52PM +0200, George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Vadim Rozenfeld vroze...@redhat.com wrote:
I've also added +hv_relaxed since then, but this is the command I'm
I would suggest activating relaxed timing for all W2K8R2/Win7 guests.
Is
On Thursday, November 29, 2012 03:56:10 PM Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:45:52PM +0200, George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Vadim Rozenfeld vroze...@redhat.com
wrote:
I've also added +hv_relaxed since then, but this is the command I'm
I
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:13:12 PM George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Vadim Rozenfeld vroze...@redhat.com
wrote:
I have some code which do both reference time and invariant TSC but it
will not work after migration. I will send it later today.
Do you
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Vadim Rozenfeld vroze...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:13:12 PM George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Vadim Rozenfeld vroze...@redhat.com
wrote:
I have some code which do both reference time and invariant TSC but
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Vadim Rozenfeld vroze...@redhat.com wrote:
There are two patches, one for kvm and another one for qemu.
I just realised this. I was supposed to use qemu, or qemu-kvm? I used qemu
--
George-Cristian Bîrzan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 09:18:38PM +0200, George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Vadim Rozenfeld vroze...@redhat.com wrote:
There are two patches, one for kvm and another one for qemu.
I just realised this. I was supposed to use qemu, or qemu-kvm? I used qemu
Does
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 09:18:38PM +0200, George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Vadim Rozenfeld vroze...@redhat.com wrote:
There are two patches, one for kvm and another one for qemu.
I just
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:01:04PM +0200, George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 09:18:38PM +0200, George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Vadim Rozenfeld vroze...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 09:31:19PM +0200, George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 6:17 PM, George-Cristian Bîrzan g...@birzan.org
wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
What Windows is this? Can you try changing -cpu host to -cpu
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 09:31:19PM +0200, George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 6:17 PM, George-Cristian Bîrzan g...@birzan.org
wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 02:29:20PM +0200, George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 09:31:19PM +0200, George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 6:17 PM, George-Cristian Bîrzan g...@birzan.org
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 04:54:47 PM Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 02:29:20PM +0200, George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 09:31:19PM +0200, George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
On Sun, Nov
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Vadim Rozenfeld vroze...@redhat.com wrote:
I have some code which do both reference time and invariant TSC but it
will not work after migration. I will send it later today.
Do you mean migrating guests? This is not an issue for us.
Also, it would be much
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 6:17 PM, George-Cristian Bîrzan g...@birzan.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
What Windows is this? Can you try changing -cpu host to -cpu
host,+hv_relaxed?
This is on Windows Server 2008 R2 (sorry, forgot to mention that I
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 09:17:34PM +0200, George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
I'm trying to understand a performance problem (50% degradation in the
VM) that I'm experiencing some systems with qemu-kvm. Running Fedora
with 3.5.3-1.fc17.x86_64 or 3.6.6-1.fc17.x86_64, qemu 1.0.1 or 1.2.1
on AMD
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
What Windows is this? Can you try changing -cpu host to -cpu
host,+hv_relaxed?
This is on Windows Server 2008 R2 (sorry, forgot to mention that I
guess), and I can try it tomorrow (US time), as getting a stream my
way depends
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi stefa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi George-Cristian,
On IRC you mentioned you found a solution. Any updates? Are you still
seeing the performance problem?
It wasn't a solution, I just thought I knew why. I was thinking the
73Mbps were coming in at
I'm trying to understand a performance problem (50% degradation in the
VM) that I'm experiencing some systems with qemu-kvm. Running Fedora
with 3.5.3-1.fc17.x86_64 or 3.6.6-1.fc17.x86_64, qemu 1.0.1 or 1.2.1
on AMD Opteron 6176 and 6174, and all of them behave identically.
A Windows guest is
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 09:17:34PM +0200, George-Cristian Bîrzan wrote:
I'm trying to understand a performance problem (50% degradation in the
VM) that I'm experiencing some systems with qemu-kvm. Running Fedora
with 3.5.3-1.fc17.x86_64 or 3.6.6-1.fc17.x86_64, qemu 1.0.1 or 1.2.1
on AMD
: Re: virtio + vhost-net performance issue - preadv ?
Got the same results here last year when we were testing.
In the end, we use only CentOS6. And even more, we changed the kernel to
3.5.5 due to unstable Windows virtualization when using several Windows
Server in the same Hypervisor.
2-4 GBit
I have a working copy of libvirt 0.10.2 + qemu 1.2 installed on a vanilla
up-to-date (2.6.32-279.9.1) CentOS 6 host, and get very good VM - VM
network performance (both running on the same host) using virtio. I have
cgroups set to cap the VMs at 10Gbps and iperf shows I'm getting exactly
10Gbps.
Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 03:33:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 11:18 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Certainly that has even greater potential for Linux guests. Note
that we spin on mutexes now, so we need to prevent preemption while
the lock owner
On 04/16/2010 05:27 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
When vcpus are pinned to pcpus, there is a 50% chance that a guest's
vcpus will be co-scheduled and spinlocks will perform will.
When vcpus are not pinned, but affine wakeups are disabled, there is a
33% chance that vcpus will be co-scheduled.
On 04/15/2010 04:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 11:18 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Certainly that has even greater potential for Linux guests. Note that
we spin on mutexes now, so we need to prevent preemption while the lock
owner is running.
either that, or disable
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 09:43 -0700, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 03:33:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 11:18 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Certainly that has even greater potential for Linux guests. Note that
we spin on mutexes now, so we need
On 04/15/2010 07:58 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
mailto:a...@redhat.com wrote:
The current handing of PLE is very suboptimal. With proper
directed yield we should be much better there.
Hi Avi,
By directed
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 11:18 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Certainly that has even greater potential for Linux guests. Note that
we spin on mutexes now, so we need to prevent preemption while the lock
owner is running.
either that, or disable spinning on (para) virt kernels. Para virt
kernels
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 03:33:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 11:18 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Certainly that has even greater potential for Linux guests. Note that
we spin on mutexes now, so we need to prevent preemption while the lock
owner is running.
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/14/2010 06:24 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Spin loops need to be addressed first, they are known to kill
performance in overcommit situations.
Even in overcommit case, if vcpu threads of one qemu are not
scheduled or pulled to the same logical processor, the
On 04/14/2010 06:24 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Spin loops need to be addressed first, they are known to kill
performance in overcommit situations.
Even in overcommit case, if vcpu threads of one qemu are not
scheduled or pulled to the same logical processor, the performance
drop is
On 04/13/2010 03:50 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/12/2010 05:04 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
What was the performance hit? What was your I/O setup (image
format, using aio?)
The issue only happens when vcpu number is over-committed(e.g.
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/13/2010 03:50 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/12/2010 05:04 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
What was the performance hit? What was your I/O setup (image
format, using aio?)
The issue only happens when vcpu number is over-committed(e.g.
On 04/12/2010 05:04 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
What was the performance hit? What was your I/O setup (image format,
using aio?)
The issue only happens when vcpu number is over-committed(e.g. vcpu/pcpu2) and
physical cpus are saturated. For example, when run webbench in windows OS in
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/12/2010 05:04 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
What was the performance hit? What was your I/O setup (image
format, using aio?)
The issue only happens when vcpu number is over-committed(e.g.
vcpu/pcpu2) and physical cpus are saturated. For example, when run
webbench
Avi Kivity wrote:
(copying lkml and some scheduler folk)
On 04/10/2010 11:16 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Hi, all
We are working on the scalability work for KVM guests, and found
one big issue exists in linux scheduler and it may impact guest's
performance and scalability a lot for some
Hi, all
We are working on the scalability work for KVM guests, and found one big
issue exists in linux scheduler and it may impact guest's performance and
scalability a lot for some special workloads running in VM. In the current
Linux scheduler, there are some features to enhance App's
(copying lkml and some scheduler folk)
On 04/10/2010 11:16 AM, Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
Hi, all
We are working on the scalability work for KVM guests, and found one big
issue exists in linux scheduler and it may impact guest's performance and
scalability a lot for some special workloads
Hello,
I'd like to discuss an issue I'm having with KVM on a Windows XP guest.
The hosting system is a `x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7300 @
2.00GHz GenuineIntel' machine runing the latest (stable) kernel
release and KVM version 83.
The respecitve modules (kvm, kvm_intel) are loaded and
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 22:24 +0300, Ben-Ami Yassour wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 09:16 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Ben-Ami Yassour wrote:
I am running virtio with the latest KVM code, and see a significant
performance issue.
Ping to the host (or any other close machine) reports
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 11:49 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 22:24 +0300, Ben-Ami Yassour wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 09:16 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Ben-Ami Yassour wrote:
I am running virtio with the latest KVM code, and see a significant
performance issue
I am running virtio with the latest KVM code, and see a significant
performance issue.
Ping to the host (or any other close machine) reports a 4ms delay.
In the same setup with an e1000 emulation (just changing model=virtio to
model=e1000 in the KVM command line), ping reports 0.177ms delay
Ben-Ami Yassour wrote:
I am running virtio with the latest KVM code, and see a significant
performance issue.
Ping to the host (or any other close machine) reports a 4ms delay.
What kvm version and what host kernel version?
It's very easy to mistakenly compile qemu without GSO support too
Ben-Ami Yassour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Ben,
I am running virtio with the latest KVM code, and see a significant
performance issue.
Ping to the host (or any other close machine) reports a 4ms delay.
In the same setup with an e1000 emulation (just changing model=virtio to
model
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 09:16 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Ben-Ami Yassour wrote:
I am running virtio with the latest KVM code, and see a significant
performance issue.
Ping to the host (or any other close machine) reports a 4ms delay.
What kvm version and what host kernel version
48 matches
Mail list logo
