[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090507234311.GA9517@amt.cnet>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 20:43:11 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 08:35:03PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Also for PIO/MMIO you're adding this unoptimized lookup to the
> measurement:
>
> pio_dev = vcpu_find_pio_dev(vcpu, port, size, !in);
> if (pio_dev) {
> kernel_pio(pio_dev, vcpu, vcpu->arch.pio_data);
> complete_pio(vcpu);
> return 1;
> }
>
> Whereas for hypercall measurement you don't. I believe a fair comparison
> would be have a shared guest/host memory area where you store guest/host
> TSC values and then do, on guest:
>
> rdtscll(&shared_area->guest_tsc);
> pio/mmio/hypercall
> ... back to host
> rdtscll(&shared_area->host_tsc);
>
> And then calculate the difference (minus guests TSC_OFFSET of course)?
Test Machine: Dell Precision 490 - 4-way SMP (2x2) x86_64 "Woodcrest"
Core2 Xeon 5130 @2.00Ghz, 4GB RAM.
Also it would be interesting to see the MMIO comparison with EPT/NPT,
it probably sucks much less than what you're seeing.
--
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