[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111130145004.GD21413@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:50:04 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
Cc: virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC] virtio: use mandatory barriers for remote processor vdevs
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 01:55:53PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:57:19PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> >> > Is an extra branch faster or slower than reverting d57ed95?
> >>
> >> Sorry, unfortunately I have no way to measure this, as I don't have
> >> any virtualization/x86 setup. I'm developing on ARM SoCs, where
> >> virtualization hardware is coming, but not here yet.
> >
> > You can try using the micro-benchmark in tools/virtio/.
>
> Hmm, care to show me exactly what do you mean ?
make headers_install
make -C tools/virtio/
(you'll need an empty stub for tools/virtio/linux/module.h,
I just sent a patch to add that)
sudo insmod tools/virtio/vhost_test/vhost_test.ko
./tools/virtio/virtio_test
> Though I somewhat suspect that any micro-benchmarking I'll do with my
> random ARM SoC will not have much value to real virtualization/x86
> workloads.
>
> Thanks,
> Ohad.
Real virtualization/x86 can keep using current smp_XX barriers, right?
We can have some config for your kind of setup.
--
MST
--
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