| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] Add shadow VRAM
Keir-
Nice try but I thought of that :-) The code checks at run time also,
for just the reason you state. Also, I did measure and the runtime
check adds no measurable overhead.
--
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
Donald.D.Dugger@xxxxxxxxx
Ph: (303)440-1368
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:07 PM
>To: Dugger, Donald D
>Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] Add shadow VRAM
>
>
>On 15 Mar 2006, at 21:57, Donald D. Dugger wrote:
>
>> Add a shadow VRAM to track changes to the real VRAM. When the guest
>> OS was given write access to the VRAM the device model tracked all
>> VRAM changes by updating the entire screen on every output loop,
>> causing significant overhead (a CPU bound loop in a guest slows down
>> by about 35%) and significant mouse latency (VNC uses the same data
>> path for mouse events and video updates). With the shadow VRAM only
>> modified pages need to be updated and the comparison of the shadow
>> VRAM to the real VRAM only adds ~4% overhead while eliminating the
>> mouse latencies.
>
>Checking for SSE2 support on the build machine isn't good
>enough, since
>we may install on a totally different machine (distro binary packages,
>for example). Can you make it a run-time decision? Shouldn't add
>significant overhead?
>
> -- Keir
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home