[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FBDD5CA.9020906@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 14:31:38 +0800
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] KVM: fast page fault
On 05/23/2012 07:37 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/23/2012 11:51 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> Changlog:
>> This are some changes from Marcelo's review:
>> - drop SPTE_WRITE_PROTECT bit, now, only one bit is needed to do
>> lockless update.
>>
>> - always atomicly update spte if it can be updated out of mmu-lock.
>>
>> - flod the judgement of tlb flush into mmu_spte_update(), make the
>> code easilyer audited.
>>
>> Performance result:
>> - autoest migration test (smp2.Fedora.16.64.migrate.with_autotest.dbench.unix):
>> before after
>> smp2.Fedora.16.64.migrate.unix 93 91 +2.1%
>> smp2.Fedora.16.64.migrate.with_autotest.dbench.unix 218 188 +13.7%
>>
>> - the benchmark attached is used to measure the resuming time
>> after dirty-log
>> before after
>> Run 10 times, Avg time: 512466818 ns. 269231261 ns +47.5%
>
> Still scary (esp. indirect sptes), but looks pretty good.
Hmm, i do not have a better way to solve the ABA problem on indirect spte now. :(
How about only allow fast page fault to work for direct spte?
--
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