On 04/17/2012 10:47 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:36:25 +0800
> Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I tested it with kernbench, no regression is found.
>
> Because kernbench is not at all good test for this.
>
>> It is not a problem since the iter and spte should be in the cache.
>
> I have checked dirty-log-perf myself with this patch [01-07].
>
> GET_DIRTY_LOG for 1GB dirty pages has become more than 15% slower.
>
Thanks for your test!
Unbelievable, i will do more test and check it more carefully.
Could you please open your tool, then i can reproduction it and find the
real reason?
>
> Note: if you had checked the worst case latency with this patch series,
> you should have noticed this regression by yourself.
>
> Auto-test and kernbench are not enough to see the effect of this work.
>
I will check whether your tool is better then kernbench/autotest after
review your tool.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[KVM ARM]
[KVM ia64]
[KVM ppc]
[Spice Development]
[Libvirt]
[Libvirt Users]
[Linux USB Devel]
[Video for Linux]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Photo]
[Yosemite News]
[Yosemite Photos]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux SCSI]
[XFree86]