>BTW, on my uniprocessor test machine with latest xen-unstable,
>xenlinux 2.6.11.12, domU sees significant drop in network throughputs
>(~40% less!) I'm interested in whether other people encounter similar
>situations, especially on SMP machines.
>
>
>
>
Mhmhm, this is interesting, what are the timing parameters for your domains?
Thanks,
 Stephan
>On 7/8/05, Andrew Theurer <habanero@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>On Friday 08 July 2005 11:33, Andrew Theurer wrote:
>> 
>>
>>>On Friday 08 July 2005 09:53, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
>>> 
>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't IDLE domain not be scheduled for most time? Because
>>>>>idle task will call into PAL for power save on XEN/IA64, the
>>>>>performance is really, really bad to boot Dom0. The net effect is
>>>>>about ten times slower. After adding "sched=bvt", everything back
>>>>>to normal.
>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>If the sedf scheduler is scheduling the idle domain when
>>>>domain0 is runnable, surely this is affecting performance
>>>>on x86 also and is a bug that should be fixed?
>>>>
>>>>Has anyone done any performance testing (on x86) since
>>>>sedf was checked in as the default?
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>Just tried launching some cpu bound tasks in dom0, and I get only 75%
>>>cpu util for dom0. I'll try the other domain scheduler and see if it
>>>clears it up.
>>> 
>>>
>>OK, just confirmed bvt works as expected in ia32.
>>
>>-Andrew
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Xen-devel mailing list
>>Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel 
>>
>> 
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Xen-devel mailing list
>Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel 
>
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel