[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49D35D12.6080209@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:24:50 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, agraf@...e.de, pmullaney@...ell.com,
pmorreale@...ell.com, anthony@...emonkey.ws, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/17] shm-signal: shared-memory signals
Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Note that this is exactly what I do (though it is device specific).
> venet-tap has a ioq_notifier registered on its "rx" ring (which is the
> tx-ring for the guest) that simply calls ioq_notify_disable() (which
> calls shm_signal_disable() under the covers) and it wakes its
> rx-thread. This all happens in the context of the hypercall, which then
> returns and allows the vcpu to re-enter guest mode immediately.
>
I think this is suboptimal. The ring is likely to be cache hot on the
current cpu, waking a thread will introduce scheduling latency + IPI
+cache-to-cache transfers.
On a benchmark setup, host resources are likely to exceed guest
requirements, so you can throw cpu at the problem and no one notices.
But I think the bits/cycle figure will decrease, even if bits/sec increases.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
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