[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FBDE0FB.3040100@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 10:19:23 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.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 05/24/2012 09:31 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> 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?
>
I'll certainly be more comfortable with that, at least to start with.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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