On 7/25/06, Andrew Theurer <habanero@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ian Pratt wrote:
>> on Xeon MP processor, uniprocessor dom0 kernel, pae=y:
>>
>> benchmark c/s 10729 force_emulate
>> ------------------------ --------- -------------
>> lmbench fork+exit: 469.5833 470.3913 usec, lower is better
>> lmbench fork+execve: 1241.0000 1225.7778 usec, lower is better
>> lmbench fork+/sbin/bash: 12190.000 12119.000 usec, lower is better
>>
>
> It's kinda weird that these scores are so close -- I guess its just
> coincidence that we must be getting something like an average of 10-20
> pte's updated per pagetable page and the cost of doing multiple emulates
> perfectly balances the cost of unhooking/rehooking.

Just a silly question; is the old batched update mechanism totally out
of the picture here? Is it the cost of taking additional faults that
makes writable ptes as slow as emulation (which I suppose just means
shadow p.t.s)? Is there tension between shadow pt cache size inside
Xen and runtime performance?
Regards,
Jacob
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel