From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Massimo Canonico <mex@di.unipmn.it>
Subject: Re: CAP and performance problem
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:09:44 +0200
Message-ID: <51B08A18.1040508@di.unipmn.it>
References: <519B3832.30608@di.unipmn.it> <1370451024.18519.190.camel@Solace>
	<1370452319.18519.197.camel@Solace> <51AF6FBD.9090007@di.unipmn.it>
	<1370507870.18519.224.camel@Solace> <51B04F0E.5040506@di.unipmn.it>
	<51B066CC.4060900@ts.fujitsu.com> <51B067F1.1010008@eu.citrix.com>
	<51B08606.9090105@di.unipmn.it> <1370523835.18519.248.camel@Solace>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1370523835.18519.248.camel@Solace>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
Cc: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org


On 06/06/2013 03:03 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On gio, 2013-06-06 at 14:52 +0200, Massimo Canonico wrote:
>> On 06/06/2013 12:44 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>> You can test this by setting the xen hypervisor boot option
>>>>
>>>> cpufreq=none
>>>>
>>>> and run your test again (with and without cap).
>>> Ah, genius Juergen!  That would make total sense.
>>>
>>>   -George
>>>
>> Unfortunately, this did not change much. I set "cpufreq=none" in the
>> boot line and restart my experiment.
>> With no cap I got 298.029
>> with cap=50% I got 910.272
>> (average values of 3 experiments for each cap setting)
>>
> Mmm... 298.029 is a lot faster than what you reported before, though...
> Are this the exact same experiments?
>
> In fact, in the first e-mail of this thread you said that "with CAP =
> 100% I got my results in about 600 seconds". So, have you changed
> something or the cpufred=none did at least have some effect?
>
> Dario

Hi Dario,
I only changed the workload from "40 times matrix multiplications" to 
"20 times matrix multiplications" to get the results faster, since I do 
not think that this makes any difference in perfomance comparisin 
between cap/no cap.

M