[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 00/49] xen: add core scheduling support
- To: Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@xxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- From: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 09:16:40 +0200
- Autocrypt: addr=jgross@xxxxxxxx; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFOMcBYBCACgGjqjoGvbEouQZw/ToiBg9W98AlM2QHV+iNHsEs7kxWhKMjrioyspZKOB ycWxw3ie3j9uvg9EOB3aN4xiTv4qbnGiTr3oJhkB1gsb6ToJQZ8uxGq2kaV2KL9650I1SJve dYm8Of8Zd621lSmoKOwlNClALZNew72NjJLEzTalU1OdT7/i1TXkH09XSSI8mEQ/ouNcMvIJ NwQpd369y9bfIhWUiVXEK7MlRgUG6MvIj6Y3Am/BBLUVbDa4+gmzDC9ezlZkTZG2t14zWPvx XP3FAp2pkW0xqG7/377qptDmrk42GlSKN4z76ELnLxussxc7I2hx18NUcbP8+uty4bMxABEB AAG0H0p1ZXJnZW4gR3Jvc3MgPGpncm9zc0BzdXNlLmNvbT6JATkEEwECACMFAlOMcK8CGwMH CwkIBwMCAQYVCAIJCgsEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRCw3p3WKL8TL8eZB/9G0juS/kDY9LhEXseh mE9U+iA1VsLhgDqVbsOtZ/S14LRFHczNd/Lqkn7souCSoyWsBs3/wO+OjPvxf7m+Ef+sMtr0 G5lCWEWa9wa0IXx5HRPW/ScL+e4AVUbL7rurYMfwCzco+7TfjhMEOkC+va5gzi1KrErgNRHH kg3PhlnRY0Udyqx++UYkAsN4TQuEhNN32MvN0Np3WlBJOgKcuXpIElmMM5f1BBzJSKBkW0Jc Wy3h2Wy912vHKpPV/Xv7ZwVJ27v7KcuZcErtptDevAljxJtE7aJG6WiBzm+v9EswyWxwMCIO RoVBYuiocc51872tRGywc03xaQydB+9R7BHPuQENBFOMcBYBCADLMfoA44MwGOB9YT1V4KCy vAfd7E0BTfaAurbG+Olacciz3yd09QOmejFZC6AnoykydyvTFLAWYcSCdISMr88COmmCbJzn sHAogjexXiif6ANUUlHpjxlHCCcELmZUzomNDnEOTxZFeWMTFF9Rf2k2F0Tl4E5kmsNGgtSa aMO0rNZoOEiD/7UfPP3dfh8JCQ1VtUUsQtT1sxos8Eb/HmriJhnaTZ7Hp3jtgTVkV0ybpgFg w6WMaRkrBh17mV0z2ajjmabB7SJxcouSkR0hcpNl4oM74d2/VqoW4BxxxOD1FcNCObCELfIS auZx+XT6s+CE7Qi/c44ibBMR7hyjdzWbABEBAAGJAR8EGAECAAkFAlOMcBYCGwwACgkQsN6d 1ii/Ey9D+Af/WFr3q+bg/8v5tCknCtn92d5lyYTBNt7xgWzDZX8G6/pngzKyWfedArllp0Pn fgIXtMNV+3t8Li1Tg843EXkP7+2+CQ98MB8XvvPLYAfW8nNDV85TyVgWlldNcgdv7nn1Sq8g HwB2BHdIAkYce3hEoDQXt/mKlgEGsLpzJcnLKimtPXQQy9TxUaLBe9PInPd+Ohix0XOlY+Uk QFEx50Ki3rSDl2Zt2tnkNYKUCvTJq7jvOlaPd6d/W0tZqpyy7KVay+K4aMobDsodB3dvEAs6 ScCnh03dDAFgIq5nsB11j3KPKdVoPlfucX2c7kGNH+LUMbzqV6beIENfNexkOfxHf4kBrQQY AQgAIBYhBIUSZ3Lo9gSUpdCX97DendYovxMvBQJa3fDQAhsCAIEJELDendYovxMvdiAEGRYI AB0WIQRTLbB6QfY48x44uB6AXGG7T9hjvgUCWt3w0AAKCRCAXGG7T9hjvk2LAP99B/9FenK/ 1lfifxQmsoOrjbZtzCS6OKxPqOLHaY47BgEAqKKn36YAPpbk09d2GTVetoQJwiylx/Z9/mQI CUbQMg1pNQf9EjA1bNcMbnzJCgt0P9Q9wWCLwZa01SnQWFz8Z4HEaKldie+5bHBL5CzVBrLv 81tqX+/j95llpazzCXZW2sdNL3r8gXqrajSox7LR2rYDGdltAhQuISd2BHrbkQVEWD4hs7iV 1KQHe2uwXbKlguKPhk5ubZxqwsg/uIHw0qZDk+d0vxjTtO2JD5Jv/CeDgaBX4Emgp0NYs8IC UIyKXBtnzwiNv4cX9qKlz2Gyq9b+GdcLYZqMlIBjdCz0yJvgeb3WPNsCOanvbjelDhskx9gd 6YUUFFqgsLtrKpCNyy203a58g2WosU9k9H+LcheS37Ph2vMVTISMszW9W8gyORSgmw==
- Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>, Robert VanVossen <robert.vanvossen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>, Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>, Josh Whitehead <josh.whitehead@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Meng Xu <mengxu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 07:16:52 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
- Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
On 11/04/2019 02:34, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 19:16 +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 16:08 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> I have done some very basic performance testing: on a 4 cpu system
>>> (2 cores with 2 threads each) I did a "make -j 4" for building the
>>> Xen
>>> hypervisor. With This test has been run on dom0, once with no other
>>> guest active and once with another guest with 4 vcpus running the
>>> same
>>> test.
>> Just as an heads up for people (as Juergen knows this already :-D),
>> I'm
>> planning to run some performance evaluation of this patches.
>>
>> I've got an 8 CPUs system (4 cores, 2 threads each, no-NUMA) and an
>> 16
>> CPUs system (2 sockets/NUMA nodes, 4 cores each, 2 threads each) on
>> which I should be able to get some bench suite running relatively
>> easy
>> and (hopefully) quick.
>>
>> I'm planning to evaluate:
>> - vanilla (i.e., without this series), SMT enabled in BIOS
>> - vanilla (i.e., without this series), SMT disabled in BIOS
>> - patched (i.e., with this series), granularity=thread
>> - patched (i.e., with this series), granularity=core
>>
>> I'll do start with no overcommitment, and then move to 2x
>> overcommitment (as you did above).
>>
> I've got the first set of results. It's fewer than I wanted/expected to
> have at this point in time, but still...
>
> Also, it's Phoronix again. I don't especially love it, but I'm still
> working on convincing our own internal automated benchmarking tool
> (which I like a lot more :-) ) to be a good friend of Xen. :-P
I think the Phoronix tests as such are not that bad, its the way they
are used by Phoronix which is completely idiotic.
> It's a not too big set of tests, done in the following conditions:
> - hardware: Intel Xeon E5620; 2 NUMA nodes, 4 cores and 2 threads each
> - slow disk (old rotational HDD)
> - benchmarks run in dom0
> - CPU, memory and some disk IO benchmarks
> - all Spec&Melt mitigations disabled both at Xen and dom0 kernel level
> - cpufreq governor = performance, max_cstate = C1
> - *non* debug hypervisor
>
> In just one sentence, what I'd say is "So far so god" :-D
>
> https://openbenchmarking.org/result/1904105-SP-1904100DA38
Thanks for doing that!
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
