[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1298386481.5764.60.camel@x201>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 07:54:41 -0700
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] KVM: sort memslots and use binary search to search
the right slot
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 16:25 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/22/2011 10:12 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> > Sort memslots then search the slot with binary search to speed up the
> > slot searching
> >
>
> I'm not sure if a binary search is the right algorithm here. It
> introduces a lot of branches which may be mispredicted.
>
> Options we've discussed are:
>
> - Sort slots by size, use linear search (so the largest slots are found
> quickly)
> - Weighted balanced tree
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight-balanced_tree, use weight == slot size
I've got an implementation using a weight balanced tree working now. I
need to do some testing to see if I can detect any performance
difference from the current unsorted, linear array.
> Both options still make the miss case (mmio) slow. We could cache the
> result of a miss in an spte by using a reserved bit, and checking the
> page fault error code (or seeing if we get an ept violation or ept
> misconfiguration), so if we get repeated mmio on a page, we don't need
> to search the slot list/tree.
I haven't started on this idea yet. Thanks,
Alex
--
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