lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support

    * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:

    > Ingo Molnar wrote:
    >> Personally i'd like to see a sufficient reply to the
    >> mmap-perf paravirt regressions pointed out by Nick and
    >> reproduced by myself as well. (They were in the 4-5%
    >> macro-performance range iirc, which is huge.)
    >>
    >> So i havent seen any real progress on reducing native kernel
    >> overhead with paravirt. Patches were sent but no measurements
    >> were done and it seemed to have all fizzled out while the
    >> dom0 patches are being pursued.
    >>
    >
    > Hm, I'm not sure what you want me to do here. I sent out
    > patches, they got merged, I posted the results of my
    > measurements showing that the patches made a substantial
    > improvement. I'd love to see confirmation from others that
    > the patches help them, but I don't think you can say I've been
    > unresponsive about this.

    Have i missed a mail of yours perhaps? I dont have any track of
    you having posted mmap-perf perfcounters results. I grepped my
    mbox and the last mail i saw from you containing the string
    "mmap-perf" is from January 20, and it only includes my numbers.

    What i'd expect you to do is to proactively measure the overhead
    of CONFIG_PARAVIRT overhead of the native kernel, and analyze
    and address the results. Not just minimalistically reply to my
    performance measurements - as that does not really scale in the
    long run.

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-02 13:13    [W:0.024 / U:65.820 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site