[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49AEBCA2.8020307@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:38:42 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
CC: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>> It really depends on the workload. There's three cases to consider:
>> software shadow pagetables, hardware nested pagetables, and Xen
>> direct pagetables. Even now, Xen's (highly optimised) shadow
>> pagetable code generally out-performs modern nested pagetables, at
>> least when running Windows (for which that code was most heavily tuned).
>
> Can you point to benchmarks? I have a hard time believing this.
Erm, not that I know of off-hand. I don't really have any interest in
Windows performance, so I'm reduced to repeating (highly reliable) Xen
Summit corridor chat.
> How can shadow paging beat nested paging assuming the presence of
> large pages?
I think large pages do turn the tables, and its close to parity with
shadow with 4k pages on recent cpus. But see above for reliability on
that info.
J
--
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