WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86 hvm: freeze PIT/LAPIC timer emulation while

To: Kouya Shimura <kouya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Cui, Dexuan" <dexuan.cui@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86 hvm: freeze PIT/LAPIC timer emulation while its IRQ is masked
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:36:13 +0100
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:39:04 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <7kk4zzcmyy.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Aco2p7GMzU2mnoKnR4iAxNLyDgtxoQAAQ4GF
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86 hvm: freeze PIT/LAPIC timer emulation while its IRQ is masked
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605
I liked both patches when I looked at them, so I checked them in and we'll
see how well they work!

 -- Keir

On 16/09/2009 09:28, "Kouya Shimura" <kouya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Cui, Dexuan writes:
>> Looks the little win doesn't deserve the increased complexity in code.
> 
> Agreed. I don't strongly push my patches.
> But this win is given by 2/2 patch and it fixes a certain bug.
> Besides, 1/2 patch simplifies the code, I think.
> 
>> BTW, recent Intel CPUs run much faster with respect to VMEntry/VMExit and
>> VMREAD/VMWRITE, so I don't think the SW optimizatin is appearling here. :-)
> 
> I have a "Mottainai"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mottainai) spirit. :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> Kouya
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -- Dexuan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
>> Sent: 2009?9?16? 15:41
>> To: Kouya Shimura
>> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86 hvm: freeze PIT/LAPIC timer emulation
>> while its IRQ is masked
>> 
>> On 16/09/2009 07:46, "Kouya Shimura" <kouya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> I remade the patch and measured the performance win. Attached is
>>> a benchmark program which I wrote. It is complied by cygwin's gcc
>>> by -O2 and runs on Windows XP(32bit). And my cpu is
>>> Intel Core2 Quad Q9450@xxxxxxxx
>>> 
>>> The result is that my patch saves 32 cycles(TSC) per one VM_EXIT(cpuid).
>>> (2696 tsc => 2664 tsc)
>>> 
>>> The patch is split to two. I'll post them in another mail.
>> 
>> That's really not enough of a win to bother with, is it.
>> 
>>  -- Keir
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>