On 02/07/2012 05:17 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 02/07/2012 06:03 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/06/2012 09:11 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I'm not so sure. ioeventfds and a future mmio-over-socketpair have
to put the
kthread to sleep while it waits for the other end to process it.
This is
effectively equivalent to a heavy weight exit. The difference in
cost is
dropping to userspace which is really neglible these days (< 100
cycles).
On what machine did you measure these wonderful numbers?
A syscall is what I mean by "dropping to userspace", not the cost of a
heavy weight exit.
Ah. But then ioeventfd has that as well, unless the other end is in the
kernel too.
I think a heavy weight exit is still around a few thousand cycles.
Any nehalem class or better processor should have a syscall cost of
around that unless I'm wildly mistaken.
That's what I remember too.
But I agree a heavyweight exit is probably faster than a double
context switch
on a remote core.
I meant, if you already need to take a heavyweight exit (and you do to
schedule something else on the core), than the only additional cost is
taking a syscall return to userspace *first* before scheduling another
process. That overhead is pretty low.
Yeah.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
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
