[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F31408F.80901@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:17:35 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: Rob Earhart <earhart@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
qemu-devel <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api
On 02/07/2012 06:03 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 09:11 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> I'm not so sure. ioeventfds and a future mmio-over-socketpair have to put the
>> kthread to sleep while it waits for the other end to process it. This is
>> effectively equivalent to a heavy weight exit. The difference in cost is
>> dropping to userspace which is really neglible these days (< 100 cycles).
>
> On what machine did you measure these wonderful numbers?
A syscall is what I mean by "dropping to userspace", not the cost of a heavy
weight exit. I think a heavy weight exit is still around a few thousand cycles.
Any nehalem class or better processor should have a syscall cost of around that
unless I'm wildly mistaken.
>
> But I agree a heavyweight exit is probably faster than a double context switch
> on a remote core.
I meant, if you already need to take a heavyweight exit (and you do to schedule
something else on the core), than the only additional cost is taking a syscall
return to userspace *first* before scheduling another process. That overhead is
pretty low.
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