Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:54:05 -0500
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Sun, 2009-05-10 at 13:38 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Gregory Haskins wrote:
Can you back up your claim that PPC has no difference in performanceFirst, the PPC that KVM supports performs very poorly relatively speaking because it receives no hardware assistance this is not the right place to focus wrt optimizations.
with an MMIO exit and a "hypercall" (yes, I understand PPC has no "VT"
like instructions, but clearly there are ways to cause a trap, so
presumably we can measure the difference between a PF exit and something
more explicit).
And because there's no hardware assistance, there simply isn't a hypercall instruction. Are PFs the fastest type of exits? Probably not but I honestly have no idea. I'm sure Hollis does though.
Memory load from the guest context (for instruction decoding) is a
*very* poorly performing path on most PowerPC, even considering server
PowerPC with hardware virtualization support. No, I don't have any data
for you, but switching the hardware MMU contexts requires some
heavyweight synchronization instructions.
For current ppcemb, you would have to do a memory load no matter what, right? I guess you could have a dedicated interrupt vector or something...
For future ppcemb's, do you know if there is an equivalent of a PF exit type? Does the hardware squirrel away the faulting address somewhere and set PC to the start of the instruction? If so, no guest memory load should be required.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: PowerPC page faults
- From: Hollis Blanchard
- Re: PowerPC page faults
- References:
- [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- From: Gregory Haskins
- Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- From: Avi Kivity
- Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- From: Gregory Haskins
- Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- From: Avi Kivity
- Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- From: Gregory Haskins
- Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- From: Chris Wright
- Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- From: Gregory Haskins
- Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- From: Chris Wright
- Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- From: Gregory Haskins
- Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- From: Avi Kivity
- Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- From: Anthony Liguori
- Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- From: Gregory Haskins
- Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- From: Anthony Liguori
- Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- From: Hollis Blanchard
- [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH -next] soc_camera: depends on I2C
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC] fiemap tester
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
- Next by thread: Re: PowerPC page faults
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|