[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45A7BF9F.5090508@qumranet.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:04:31 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: kvm-devel <kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: kvm & dyntick
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
>
>>> dyntick-enabled guest:
>>> - reduce the load on the host when the guest is idling
>>> (currently an idle guest consumes a few percent cpu)
>>>
>> yeah. KVM under -rt already works with dynticks enabled on both the
>> host and the guest. (but it's more optimal to use a dedicated
>> hypercall to set the next guest-interrupt)
>>
>
> using the dynticks code from the -rt kernel makes the overhead of an
> idle guest go down by a factor of 10-15:
>
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> 2556 mingo 15 0 598m 159m 157m R 1.5 8.0 0:26.20 qemu
>
>
As usual, great news.
> ( for this to work on my system i have added a 'hyper' clocksource
> hypercall API for KVM guests to use - this is needed instead of the
> running-to-slowly TSC. )
>
What's the problem with the TSC? The only issue I'm aware of is that
the tsc might go backwards if the vcpu is migrated to another host cpu
(easily fixed).
A pv clocksource makes sense in any case.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists