[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A03A45D.2050102@novell.com>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 23:17:49 -0400
From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.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
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> 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.
>
>
Agreed. If you or someone on this thread has such a beast, please fire
up my test and post the numbers.
-Greg
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (267 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists