search for: halt_poll_threshold

...ugh the heavy overhead path. Here is the data we get when running benchmark contextswitch to measure the latency(lower is better): 1. w/o patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0): 3402.9 ns/ctxsw -- 199.8 %CPU 2. w/ patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0): halt_poll_threshold=10000 -- 1151.4 ns/ctxsw -- 200.1 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=20000 -- 1149.7 ns/ctxsw -- 199.9 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=30000 -- 1151.0 ns/ctxsw -- 199.9 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=40000 -- 1155.4 ns/ctxsw -- 199.3 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=50000 -- 1161.0 ns/ctxsw -- 200.0...

...ugh the heavy overhead path. Here is the data we get when running benchmark contextswitch to measure the latency(lower is better): 1. w/o patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0): 3402.9 ns/ctxsw -- 199.8 %CPU 2. w/ patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0): halt_poll_threshold=10000 -- 1151.4 ns/ctxsw -- 200.1 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=20000 -- 1149.7 ns/ctxsw -- 199.9 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=30000 -- 1151.0 ns/ctxsw -- 199.9 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=40000 -- 1155.4 ns/ctxsw -- 199.3 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=50000 -- 1161.0 ns/ctxsw -- 200.0...

...ugh the heavy overhead path. Here is the data we get when running benchmark contextswitch to measure the latency(lower is better): 1. w/o patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0): 3402.9 ns/ctxsw -- 199.8 %CPU 2. w/ patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0): halt_poll_threshold=10000 -- 1151.4 ns/ctxsw -- 200.1 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=20000 -- 1149.7 ns/ctxsw -- 199.9 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=30000 -- 1151.0 ns/ctxsw -- 199.9 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=40000 -- 1155.4 ns/ctxsw -- 199.3 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=50000 -- 1161.0 ns/ctxsw -- 200.0...

...ugh the heavy overhead path. Here is the data we get when running benchmark contextswitch to measure the latency(lower is better): 1. w/o patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0): 3402.9 ns/ctxsw -- 199.8 %CPU 2. w/ patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0): halt_poll_threshold=10000 -- 1151.4 ns/ctxsw -- 200.1 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=20000 -- 1149.7 ns/ctxsw -- 199.9 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=30000 -- 1151.0 ns/ctxsw -- 199.9 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=40000 -- 1155.4 ns/ctxsw -- 199.3 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=50000 -- 1161.0 ns/ctxsw -- 200.0...

...ugh the heavy overhead path. Here is the data we get when running benchmark contextswitch to measure the latency(lower is better): 1. w/o patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0): 3402.9 ns/ctxsw -- 199.8 %CPU 2. w/ patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0): halt_poll_threshold=10000 -- 1151.4 ns/ctxsw -- 200.1 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=20000 -- 1149.7 ns/ctxsw -- 199.9 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=30000 -- 1151.0 ns/ctxsw -- 199.9 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=40000 -- 1155.4 ns/ctxsw -- 199.3 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=50000 -- 1161.0 ns/ctxsw -- 200.0...

...ugh the heavy overhead path. Here is the data we get when running benchmark contextswitch to measure the latency(lower is better): 1. w/o patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0): 3402.9 ns/ctxsw -- 199.8 %CPU 2. w/ patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0): halt_poll_threshold=10000 -- 1151.4 ns/ctxsw -- 200.1 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=20000 -- 1149.7 ns/ctxsw -- 199.9 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=30000 -- 1151.0 ns/ctxsw -- 199.9 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=40000 -- 1155.4 ns/ctxsw -- 199.3 %CPU halt_poll_threshold=50000 -- 1161.0 ns/ctxsw -- 200.0...