Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 08 May 2009 14:05:29 -0500 | | From | Anthony Liguori <> | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support |
| |
Gregory Haskins wrote: > Its more of an issue of execution latency (which translates to IO > latency, since "execution" is usually for the specific goal of doing > some IO). In fact, per my own design claims, I try to avoid exits like > the plague and generally succeed at making very few of them. ;) > > So its not really the .4% reduction of cpu use that allures me. Its the > 16% reduction in latency. Time/discussion will tell if its worth the > trouble to use HC or just try to shave more off of PIO. If we went that > route, I am concerned about falling back to MMIO, but Anthony seems to > think this is not a real issue. >
It's only a 16% reduction in latency if your workload is entirely dependent on the latency of a hypercall. What is that workload? I don't think it exists.
For a network driver, I have a hard time believing that anyone cares that much about 210ns of latency. We're getting close to the cost of a few dozen instructions here.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
|  |