On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 01:48:29PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 28/10/20 00:37, Ben Gardon wrote:
Currently KVM lacks a simple, userspace agnostic, performance benchmark for dirty logging. Such a benchmark will be beneficial for ensuring that dirty logging performance does not regress, and to give a common baseline for validating performance improvements. The dirty log perf test introduced in this series builds on aspects of the existing demand paging perf test and provides time-based performance metrics for enabling and disabling dirty logging, getting the dirty log, and dirtying memory.
While the test currently only has a build target for x86, I expect it will work on, or be easily modified to support other architectures.
Ben Gardon (5): KVM: selftests: Factor code out of demand_paging_test KVM: selftests: Remove address rounding in guest code KVM: selftests: Simplify demand_paging_test with timespec_diff_now KVM: selftests: Add wrfract to common guest code KVM: selftests: Introduce the dirty log perf test
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 1 + .../selftests/kvm/demand_paging_test.c | 230 ++--------- .../selftests/kvm/dirty_log_perf_test.c | 382 ++++++++++++++++++ .../selftests/kvm/include/perf_test_util.h | 192 +++++++++ .../testing/selftests/kvm/include/test_util.h | 2 + tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/test_util.c | 22 +- 7 files changed, 635 insertions(+), 195 deletions(-) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/dirty_log_perf_test.c create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/perf_test_util.h
Queued, thanks.
Why would you do that? Peter reviewed this, making several comments, such as not to put non-inline functions in header files. Ben took the time to respin the series, posting a v2. It makes no sense to pick up v1 after they put in that additional effort.
drew