|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support
|
To: |
Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support |
|
From: |
George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:59:58 +0000 |
|
Cc: |
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Thu, 05 Mar 2009 03:00:30 -0800 |
|
Dkim-signature: |
v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XxJbBfNXWybnxfHW/ar/4wv5R+vTsuU1UoaGZ2MmIPc=; b=SG0aSsE8hdiBTEbAWM4yitRptKljjb8Jl5W8X3GY7ZZiJE6UlhoMyX2rCw4JMFaFbt 4yTUyj6AL6uj1QeOkZ7sYCuDH5a2vepkOYJRSMvK/VcEhl8nEB8RN4Xo+pREAi+rESD/ wR+7GeOhBiRzwQBAmW9BM/6cf8mg2gO8CDGEA= |
|
Domainkey-signature: |
a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=xoqEWWPcCz9amQ1QD2ozdtAnBSn/9+Me5CsLbCj6b6equ5EwuB+LOfPqV1XkrOA3v4 PypTqk3IgvhCrb3i+1dZOInPQte8fZNlLOE3e3bQfpwoDKH/Y8F/bz8f3sFsZ38ny4jk 3FTLBV5xjFCDxfv+cj2sDFvZUK1BozKcbQALU= |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<49AEBB8C.2000405@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<1235786365-17744-1-git-send-email-jeremy@xxxxxxxx> <200902282309.07576.nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <49AB19E1.4050604@xxxxxxxx> <200903021737.24903.nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <49AB9336.7010103@xxxxxxxx> <49AEBB8C.2000405@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Can you point to benchmarks? I have a hard time believing this.
>
> How can shadow paging beat nested paging assuming the presence of large
> pages?
If these benchmarks would help this discussion, we can certainly run
some. As of last Fall, even with superpage support, certain workloads
perform significantly less well with HAP (hardware-assisted paging)
than with shadow pagetables. Examples are specjbb, which does almost
no pagetable updates, but totally thrashes the TLB. SysMark also
performed much better with shadow pagetables than HAP. And of course,
64-bit is worse than 32-bit. (It's actually a bit annoying from a
default-policy perspective, since about half of our workloads perform
better with HAP (up to 30% better) and half of them perform worse (up
to 30% worse)).
Our comparison would, of course, be comparing Xen+HAP to Xen+Shadow,
which isn't necessarily comparable to KVM+HAP.
Having HAP work well would be great for us as well as KVM. But
there's still the argument about hardware support: Xen can run
paravirtualized VMs on hardware with no HVM support, and can run fully
virtualized domains very well on hardware that has HVM support but not
HAP support.
-George Dunlap
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
Home