[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A0481AC.7070409@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 14:02:04 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> And we're now getting close to the point where the difference is
>> virtually meaningless.
>>
>> At .14us, in order to see 1% CPU overhead added from PIO vs HC, you
>> need 71429 exits.
>>
>
> If I read things correctly, you want the difference between PIO and
> PIOoHC, which is 210ns. But your point stands, 50,000 exits/sec will
> add 1% cpu overhead.
Right, the basic math still stands.
>>
>> The non-x86 architecture argument isn't valid because other
>> architectures either 1) don't use PCI at all (s390) and are already
>> using hypercalls 2) use PCI, but do not have a dedicated hypercall
>> instruction (PPC emb) or 3) have PIO (ia64).
>
> ia64 uses mmio to emulate pio, so the cost may be different. I agree
> on x86 it's almost negligible.
Yes, I misunderstood that they actually emulated it like that. However,
ia64 has no paravirtualization support today so surely, we aren't going
to be justifying this via ia64, right?
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
--
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