Currently the shadow paging code keeps an array of entries it knows about.
Whenever the guest invalidates an entry, we loop through that entry,
trying to invalidate matching parts.
While this is a really simple implementation, it is probably the most
ineffective one possible. So instead, let's
On 06/27/2010 01:58 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Then mmu intensive loads can expect to be slow.
Well, depends. ppc64 indeed requires the hash to be managed by the
hypervisor, so inserting or invalidating translations will mean a
roundtrip to the hypervisor, though there are ways
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 10:53 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/27/2010 01:58 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Then mmu intensive loads can expect to be slow.
Well, depends. ppc64 indeed requires the hash to be managed by the
hypervisor, so inserting or invalidating translations will
On 06/27/2010 01:58 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Then mmu intensive loads can expect to be slow.
Well, depends. ppc64 indeed requires the hash to be managed by the
hypervisor, so inserting or invalidating translations will mean a
roundtrip to the hypervisor, though there are ways
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 10:53 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/27/2010 01:58 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Then mmu intensive loads can expect to be slow.
Well, depends. ppc64 indeed requires the hash to be managed by the
hypervisor, so inserting or invalidating translations will
On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 15:20 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/22/2010 03:14 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/22/2010 03:10 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
If you have more performance hints, I'll gladly take them :).
Using a cpu that virtualizes the mmu
On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 15:20 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/22/2010 03:14 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/22/2010 03:10 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
If you have more performance hints, I'll gladly take them :).
Using a cpu that virtualizes the mmu
On 06/21/2010 04:44 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Currently the shadow paging code keeps an array of entries it knows about.
Whenever the guest invalidates an entry, we loop through that entry,
trying to invalidate matching parts.
While this is a really simple implementation, it is probably the
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/21/2010 04:44 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Currently the shadow paging code keeps an array of entries it knows
about.
Whenever the guest invalidates an entry, we loop through that entry,
trying to invalidate matching parts.
While this is a really simple implementation,
On 06/22/2010 03:04 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/21/2010 04:44 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Currently the shadow paging code keeps an array of entries it knows
about.
Whenever the guest invalidates an entry, we loop through that entry,
trying to invalidate matching
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/22/2010 03:04 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/21/2010 04:44 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Currently the shadow paging code keeps an array of entries it knows
about.
Whenever the guest invalidates an entry, we loop through that entry,
trying to
On 06/22/2010 03:10 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
If you have more performance hints, I'll gladly take them :).
Using a cpu that virtualizes the mmu in hardware helps tremendously.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/22/2010 03:10 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
If you have more performance hints, I'll gladly take them :).
Using a cpu that virtualizes the mmu in hardware helps tremendously.
PPC never does that. Even with the virtualization extensions the MMU is
still software
On 06/21/2010 04:44 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Currently the shadow paging code keeps an array of entries it knows about.
Whenever the guest invalidates an entry, we loop through that entry,
trying to invalidate matching parts.
While this is a really simple implementation, it is probably the
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/21/2010 04:44 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Currently the shadow paging code keeps an array of entries it knows
about.
Whenever the guest invalidates an entry, we loop through that entry,
trying to invalidate matching parts.
While this is a really simple implementation,
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/22/2010 03:04 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/21/2010 04:44 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Currently the shadow paging code keeps an array of entries it knows
about.
Whenever the guest invalidates an entry, we loop through that entry,
trying to
On 06/22/2010 03:10 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
If you have more performance hints, I'll gladly take them :).
Using a cpu that virtualizes the mmu in hardware helps tremendously.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/22/2010 03:10 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
If you have more performance hints, I'll gladly take them :).
Using a cpu that virtualizes the mmu in hardware helps tremendously.
PPC never does that. Even with the virtualization extensions the MMU is
still software
On 06/22/2010 03:14 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/22/2010 03:10 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
If you have more performance hints, I'll gladly take them :).
Using a cpu that virtualizes the mmu in hardware helps tremendously.
PPC never does that. Even
Currently the shadow paging code keeps an array of entries it knows about.
Whenever the guest invalidates an entry, we loop through that entry,
trying to invalidate matching parts.
While this is a really simple implementation, it is probably the most
ineffective one possible. So instead, let's
20 matches
Mail list logo
