qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] Fake machine for scalability testing


From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] Fake machine for scalability testing
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:12:14 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)

Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> writes:

> On 01/18/2011 02:16 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> The problem: you want to do serious scalability testing (1000s of VMs)
>> of your management stack.  If each guest eats up a few 100MiB and
>> competes for CPU, that requires a serious host machine.  Which you don't
>> have.  You also don't want to modify the management stack at all, if you
>> can help it.
>>
>> The solution: a perfectly normal-looking QEMU that uses minimal
>> resources.  Ability to execute any guest code is strictly optional ;)
>>
>> New option -fake-machine creates a fake machine incapable of running
>> guest code.  Completely compiled out by default, enable with configure
>> --enable-fake-machine.
>>
>> With -fake-machine, CPU use is negligible, and memory use is rather
>> modest.
>>
>> Non-fake VM running F-14 live, right after boot:
>> UID        PID  PPID  C    SZ   RSS PSR STIME TTY          TIME CMD
>> armbru   15707  2558 53 191837 414388 1 21:05 pts/3    00:00:29 [...]
>>
>> Same VM -fake-machine, after similar time elapsed:
>> UID        PID  PPID  C    SZ   RSS PSR STIME TTY          TIME CMD
>> armbru   15742  2558  0 85129  9412   0 21:07 pts/3    00:00:00 [...]
>>
>> We're using a very similar patch for RHEL scalability testing.
>>    
>
> Interesting, but:
>
>  9432 anthony   20   0  153m  14m 5384 S    0  0.2   0:00.22
> qemu-system-x86
>
> That's qemu-system-x86 -m 4

Sure you ran qemu-system-x86 -fake-machine?

> In terms of memory overhead, the largest source is not really going to
> be addressed by -fake-machine (l1_phys_map and phys_ram_dirty).

git-grep phys_ram_dirty finds nothing.

> I don't really understand the point of not creating a VCPU with KVM.
> Is there some type of overhead in doing that?

I briefly looked at both main loops, TCG's was the first one I happened
to crack, and I didn't feel like doing both then.  If the general
approach is okay, I'll gladly investigate how to do it with KVM.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]