Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Jun 2009 08:22:57 -0700 | Subject | Re: [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native kernels | From | Ulrich Drepper <> |
| |
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> wrote: > The idea that people shipping xen aren't interested in performance > regressions is really strange to me.
Why? They have a different base line. For them any regression to bare hardware performance is even a positive (since it means the gap between hardware and virt shrinks).
> Dynamic patching is a big wad of duct tape over the problem.
And what do you call the Xen model? It's a perfect fit IMO.
> I'm not saying to take harmful code, I'm saying to take code with a > small performance regression under a specific CONFIG_. Slub regresses > more than 1% on database loads, CONFIG_SCHED_GROUPS, the list goes on > and on.
None of those have to be enabled in default kernels.
> The best place to fix xen is in the kernel.
No. The best way to fix things is _on the way into the kernel_. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |