lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native kernels
From
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-02 17:27    [W:0.103 / U:0.432 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site