[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1444249310-23433-1-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 16:21:48 -0400
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, joao.m.martins@...cle.com,
david.vrabel@...rix.com, jgross@...e.com,
dario.faggioli@...rix.com, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH] Use vAPIC when doing IPI for PVHVM guests.
Hey,
I was running some tools in which we would heavily do rescheduling
of events - and realized to my surprise that the event channels (and
the hypercall) would slow things down. If I used the vAPIC with its
IPI support (so no VMEXIT) I got much much better performance.
Now this is an RFC because:
1). I hadn't verified from the xentrace how much less VMEXITS we get.
But I remember Boris's patches and they gave at least 10%.
I think this will get the same performance or even better.
2). I don't know what to do with migration. That is if the guest
migrates to older hardware it needs to recheck this I presume?
3). Should this be enabled by default? I did get better performance
but that was synthetic.
Thoughts?
Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 15 +++++------
arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
arch/x86/xen/smp.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--
arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c | 18 ++++---------
arch/x86/xen/xen-ops.h | 4 +++
5 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk (2):
xen/apic: Use vAPIC for IPI if the hardware supports it.
xen_nopv: Combine a bunch of the PV features that can be disabled
--
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