On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Luca Tettamanti wrote:
> Avi Kivity ha scritto:
>> Luca Tettamanti wrote:
>>> At 1000Hz:
>>>
>>> QEMU
>>> hpet 5.5%
>>> dynticks 11.7%
>>>
>>> KVM
>>> hpet 3.4%
>>> dynticks 7.3%
>>>
>>> No surprises here, you can see the additional 1k syscalls per second.
>>
>> This is very surprising to me. The 6.2% difference for the qemu case
>> translates to 62ms per second, or 62us per tick at 1000Hz. That's more
>> than a hundred simple syscalls on modern processors. We shouldn't have to
>> issue a hundred syscalls per guest clock tick.
>
[..snip preulde..]
> I've also tried APC which was suggested by malc[1] and:
> - readings are far more stable
> - the gap between dynticks and non-dynticks seems not significant
[..dont snip the obvious fact and snip the numbers..]
>
> Luca
> [1] copy_to_user inside spinlock is a big no-no ;)
>
[..notice a projectile targeting at you and rush to see the code..]
Mixed feelings about this... But in principle the code ofcourse is
dangerous, thank you kindly for pointing this out.
I see two ways out of this:
a. moving the lock/unlock inside the loop with unlock preceding
sometimes sleep deprived copy_to_user
b. fill temporaries and after the loop is done copy it in one go
Too late, too hot, i wouldn't mind beying on a receiving side of
a good advice.
--
vale
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
