RE: [v6] kvm/fpu: Enable fully eager restore kvm FPU

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Paolo Bonzini wrote on 2015-04-24:
> 
> 
> 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).
> 

1000 cycles? I remember it takes about 4000 cycle even in HSW server.

> Also, measurement were done on Westmere but Sandy Bridge is the first
> processor to have XSAVEOPT and thus use eager FPU.
> 
> Paolo


Best regards,
Yang


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux