From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: Xen 4.2 TODO / Release Plan Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:42:35 -0400 Message-ID: <20120831174234.GE19756@localhost.localdomain> References: <1346148361.9975.3.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: George Dunlap Cc: xen-users , Ian Campbell , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:36:47AM -0700, George Dunlap wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > > * [BUG] qemu-traditional has 50% cpu utilization on an idle > > Windows system if USB is enabled. Not 100% clear whether this is > > Xen or qemu. George Dunlap is performing initial > > investigations. > > So it's hard to get directly comparable results, but I think that > early indications are that the biggest chunk of this is due to the > extra syscall overhead for a 64-bit dom0. Data points are: > 1. Ubuntu 12.04, 64-bit, pvops Ubuntu kernel, Xen 4.2-rc2, older AMD > system: qemu uses 50% on an idle system So what happens if you run with a 32-bit dom0? What is the kernel version? There were some issues with extra traps being done due to the cpuidle running (which it should not). > 2. XenServer built with Xen-4.2; (32-bit 2.6.32 dom0), Nehalem system: > 3. Debian wheezy with the squeeze 2.6.32 32-bit kernel, older AMD > system: qemu uses 10% on an idle system Can you try booting with 'nohz=off'. What does 'perf top' (you need to run v3.4 or later) give you? > > Looking at the traces, it seems that on the AMD box there were just a > whole lot more USB-related IO accesses than on the Nehalem system. #2 > had far fewer USB-related accesses than #1, but #3 had about twice as > many as #1. So it seems likely to be a combination between something > weird that the USB driver in the guest is doing under AMD, and the > extra overhead of a 64-bit kernel. > > So I think this is probably OK to take off the blocker list (although > it's probably something we want to look into further). > > -George > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel >