Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 4.3 development update

[George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:15 PM, George Dunlap
<George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 5:41 PM, George Dunlap
> <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I'll be doing some more workload-based benchmarks (probably starting with
>> the Windows ddk example build) to see if there are other issues I turn up.
>
> So here are my results with ddk-build for Windows 2003 (which again
> have the "lazy IRQL" feature, and so aren't impacted as hard by the
> extra time processing).  It's a "time to complete" test, so lower is
> better.  (I recommend ignoring the first run, as it will be warming up
> the disk cache.)
>
> Xen 4.1: 223 167 167 170 165
>
> Xen 4.2: 216 140 145 145 150
>
> Xen-unstable: 227 200 190 200 210
>
> Xen-unstable+lapic: 246 175 175 180 175

If anyone's interested, the numbers on my Intel box (which does I
believe have the vlapic stuff) are:

Xen 4.1: 110 70 65 70 70
Xen 4.2: 110 70 65 65 65
unstable: 115 70 70 70 71
unstable+lapic: 75 65 65 65 65

There seems to be a bit of a quantization effect, so I'm not sure I
would read much into the differences in the result here, except to
conclude that the fast lapic patch doesn't seem to hurt Intel.  It
should, however, reduce suspicion from other things which my have
changed (e.g. regressions in qemu, &c).

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel