[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5539F45D.6020400@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:44:29 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: "Zhang, Yang Z" <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Li, Liang Z" <liang.z.li@...el.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "gleb@...nel.org" <gleb@...nel.org>,
"mtosatti@...hat.com" <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"Hao, Xudong" <xudong.hao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [v6] kvm/fpu: Enable fully eager restore kvm FPU
On 24/04/2015 03:16, Zhang, Yang Z wrote:
>> This is interesting since previous measurements on KVM have had
>> the exact opposite results. I think we need to understand this a
>> lot more.
>
> What I can tell is that vmexit is heavy. So it is reasonable to see
> the improvement under some cases, especially kernel is using eager
> FPU now which means each schedule may trigger a vmexit.
On the other hand vmexit is lighter and lighter on newer processors; a
Sandy Bridge has less than half the vmexit cost of a Core 2 (IIRC 1000
vs. 2500 clock cycles approximately).
Also, measurement were done on Westmere but Sandy Bridge is the first
processor to have XSAVEOPT and thus use eager FPU.
Paolo
--
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