On 05/07/2012 07:28 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 05/07/2012 04:53 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Is the improvement so low, because PLE is interfering with the patch, or
because PLE already does a good job?
It is because PLE already does a good job (of not burning cpu). The
1-3% improvement is because, patchset knows atleast who is next to hold
lock, which is lacking in PLE.
Not good. Solving a problem in software that is already solved by
hardware? It's okay if there are no costs involved, but here we're
introducing a new ABI that we'll have to maintain for a long time.
Hmm agree that being a step ahead of mighty hardware (and just an
improvement of 1-3%) is no good for long term (where PLE is future).
Having said that, it is hard for me to resist saying :
bottleneck is somewhere else on PLE m/c and IMHO answer would be
combination of paravirt-spinlock + pv-flush-tb.
But I need to come up with good number to argue in favour of the claim.
PS: Nikunj had experimented that pv-flush tlb + paravirt-spinlock is a
win on PLE where only one of them alone could not prove the benefit.
--
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
