[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A048279.8020007@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 14:05:29 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
CC: Avi Kivity <avi@...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
Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Its more of an issue of execution latency (which translates to IO
> latency, since "execution" is usually for the specific goal of doing
> some IO). In fact, per my own design claims, I try to avoid exits like
> the plague and generally succeed at making very few of them. ;)
>
> So its not really the .4% reduction of cpu use that allures me. Its the
> 16% reduction in latency. Time/discussion will tell if its worth the
> trouble to use HC or just try to shave more off of PIO. If we went that
> route, I am concerned about falling back to MMIO, but Anthony seems to
> think this is not a real issue.
>
It's only a 16% reduction in latency if your workload is entirely
dependent on the latency of a hypercall. What is that workload? I
don't think it exists.
For a network driver, I have a hard time believing that anyone cares
that much about 210ns of latency. We're getting close to the cost of a
few dozen instructions here.
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