<p dir="ltr">Thank you Greg. I got at least my unit tests to execute about as fast as my host when I turned on KVM support with qemu while testing. I can't test With the dedicated hardware or software yet, but now I have another test case to run by changing the provisioned memory.</p>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Nov 24, 2016 1:47 PM, "Greg KH" <<a href="mailto:greg@kroah.com">greg@kroah.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 01:05:47PM -0500, Kenneth Adam Miller wrote:<br>
> So, I ran perf on my host and it came back far more true. The top consumers of<br>
> time were all atomics and some function called sse3, which I believe is a super<br>
> fast memcpy implementation provided the the arch. In addition, all the highest<br>
> time consumers are within my image- it stayed out of the kernel as designed and<br>
> it used additional extensions and features.<br>
><br>
> I just thought of something-what if there is some kind of page size difference<br>
> between my host and my Linux kernel causing the performance problems?<br>
<br>
You tell me, are the page sizes different? You have said that memory<br>
accesses are different, so of course performance is going to be<br>
different. To expect otherwise is just crazy :)<br>
<br>
good luck!<br>
<br>
greg k-h<br>
</blockquote></div></div>