thunderZH963

For mmap bench, I carefully analyzed the running time of baremetal and firecracker. I found that the mmap function(the only thing the mmap function really does is change some kernel...

Do you think it might be the cache? For example, does firecracker have any special execution cache or may be the different cache size? According to my observation, these benches...

> Hi @thunderZH963, thanks for reaching out! > > We don't currently use `lmbench` for testing and we don't compare host and guest performance. I know we had some instances...

> My suggestion would be to disable NTP or any form of time synchronisation if the application is using gettimeofday or similar to measure time. > Another idea may be...

Add an important record: the X86 platform has not found the above problems. The problems that the firecracker has better performance is limited to arm.

I can observe "let memory_region = kvm_userspace_memory_region{...}" in firecracker/src/vm.rs or maybe other codes indicate "page fault handler"?

and "kubectl apply -f https://kubevirt.io/labs/manifests/vm.yaml", than, "console testvm" , blocked. why?

> and "kubectl apply -f https://kubevirt.io/labs/manifests/vm.yaml", than, "console testvm" , blocked. why? master is x86, so virtctl-amd64 is used to start vm. "kubectl get pods" shows that vm is scheduled...

{"component":"virt-launcher","level":"info","msg":"Connecting to libvirt daemon failed: virError(Code=38, Domain=7, Message='Failed to connect socket to '/var/run/libvirt/libvirt-sock': No such file or directory')","pos":"libvirt.go:505","timestamp":"2022-08-01T04:33:31.430248Z"} {"component":"virt-launcher","level":"info","msg":"libvirt version: 8.0.0, package: 2.module_el8.6.0+1087+b42c8331 (CentOS Buildsys \[email protected]\u003e, 2022-02-08-22:21:58, )","subcomponent":"libvirt","thread":"43","timestamp":"2022-08-01T04:33:31.469000Z"} {"component":"virt-launcher","level":"info","msg":"hostname: testvm","subcomponent":"libvirt","thread":"43","timestamp":"2022-08-01T04:33:31.469000Z"}...

> > But in my test, the delay of page fault in microVM is lower than QEMU / KVM VM. Why? > > If you can provide the failing test...