On 05/07/2012 01:58 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:

On 05/07/2012 02:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:

quoted

On 05/07/2012 11:29 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:

quoted

This is looking pretty good and complete now - any objections
from anyone to trying this out in a separate x86 topic tree?

No objections, instead an

Acked-by: Avi Kivity<redacted>

Thank you.

Here is a benchmark result with the patches.

3 guests with 8VCPU, 8GB RAM, 1 used for kernbench
(kernbench -f -H -M -o 20) other for cpuhog (shell script while
true with an instruction)

unpinned scenario
1x: no hogs
2x: 8hogs in one guest
3x: 8hogs each in two guest

BASE: 3.4-rc4 vanilla with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCK=n
BASE+patch: 3.4-rc4 + debugfs + pv patches with
CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCK=y

Machine : IBM xSeries with Intel(R) Xeon(R) x5570 2.93GHz CPU (Non
PLE) with 8 core , 64GB RAM

(Less is better. Below is time elapsed in sec for x86_64_defconfig
(3+3 runs)).

         BASE                    BASE+patch            %improvement
         mean (sd)               mean (sd)
case 1x:     66.0566 (74.0304)      61.3233 (68.8299)     7.16552
case 2x:     1253.2 (1795.74)      131.606 (137.358)     89.4984
case 3x:     3431.04 (5297.26)      134.964 (149.861)     96.0664

You're calculating the improvement incorrectly.  In the last case, it's
not 96%, rather it's 2400% (25x).  Similarly the second case is about
900% faster.

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