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] VMX status report. Xen: #17270 & Xen0: #488 -- nonew iss

To: "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] VMX status report. Xen: #17270 & Xen0: #488 -- nonew issue
From: "Li, Haicheng" <haicheng.li@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:00:17 +0800
Delivery-date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:02:53 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C4101D8B.1E60E%keir.fraser@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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <C40FCF29.1E53B%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C4101D8B.1E60E%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AciNk+8gVPQ6UlY+Q3imHZ2zMFtzTQA1gPlyAC47q+AAAVK7zwALrhHtABcc9yA=
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] VMX status report. Xen: #17270 & Xen0: #488 -- nonew issue
Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 26/3/08 10:00, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>> Keir, we checked guest installation with rhel4u3 today, we compared
>>> c/s 17284 with c/s 16720, The result shows latest c/s with mmio
>>> emulation changes is a little bit faster than before on our test
>>> system with Xeon(r) processors, about 20 seconds faster.
>> 
>> That's pretty surprising! I found out that slowdown on my P4 system
>> for WinXP installation is about 15%, so not as bad as I thought. And
>> I can probably reclaim most of that performance loss.
>> 
>> I find it hard to explain a performance *win* though!
> 
> Well, I implemented a virtual-address to mmio-physical-address
> lookaside cache for x86_emulate(), and with that I get following
> results for install of WinXP (time is up to second reboot, after
> graphical part of install, from an auto-install CD image):
>  xen 3.2: 1 hour 20 minutes 23 seconds
>  xen unstable using x86_emulate(): 1 hour 33 minutes 4 seconds
>  xen unstable with new optimisation: 1 hour 12 minutes 57 seconds
> 
> Considering first result (Xen 3.2) as a baseline control experiment,
> basic x86_emulate() mmio performance is 16% slower, while with the
> simple extra optimisation I get a 10% speedup (so that's 22% speedup
> compared without the optimisation).
> 
> Pretty nice!
> 
>  -- Keir

Pretty good enhancement. 
Seems on your P4 system, WinXP installation can well expose this
performance issue :).

In our environment, install rhel4u3 with full packages of editors,
test-internet, authoring-and-publishing, development-tools, admin-tools
and system-tools.
c/s 17284 : 422s
c/s 16720 : 438s

-- haicheng

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