[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kvm
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] don't call adjust_vmx_controls() second time
From:       Avi Kivity <avi () redhat ! com>
Date:       2009-08-31 13:52:14
Message-ID: 4A9BD58E.3050302 () redhat ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 08/31/2009 04:05 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
>> How does it compare to the other hypervisor now?
>
>
> My original results for other hypervisor were a little inaccurate.  
> They mistakenly used 2 vcpu guests. New runs with 1 vcpu guests (as 
> used in kvm) have slightly lower CPU utilization.  Anyway, here's the 
> breakdown:
>
>                                CPU       percent more CPU
> kvm-master/qemu-kvm-87:        50.15     78%
> kvm-next/qemu-kvm-87:          37.73     34%
>

Much better, though still a lot of work to do.

>>>> 25278     1.5214  vmlinux-2.6.31-rc5-autokern1 native_write_msr_safe
>>>> 12278     0.7390  vmlinux-2.6.31-rc5-autokern1 native_read_msr_safe
>>
>> This will be reduced to if we move virtio to kernel context.
>
> Are there plans to move that to kernel for disk, too?

We don't know if disk or net contributed to this.  If it turns out that 
vhost-blk makes sense, we'll do it.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]