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 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 showin
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 b
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 typica
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 ove
ndra K T [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
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
- 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.
>
H
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 T wrote:
In ple handler code, last_boosted_vcpu (lbv) variable is
serving as reference point to start when we enter.
Also statistical
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: app
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 06/23/2012 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 numb
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
especiall
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 mor
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 T 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 ag
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 T wrote:
In ple handler code, last_boosted_vcpu (lbv) variable is
serving as reference point to start when we enter.
Also statistical
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 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 showin
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 06/20/2012 02:21 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:50:50 +0530
Raghavendra K T 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 wi
18 matches
Mail list logo