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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans