On 02.07.20 12:03, Peng Fan wrote:
Hi Jan

https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Consolidate-Real-Time-and-HMI-with-ACRN-Hypervisor.pdf

Have you ever see this? Page 13, there is a compare between ACRN and jailhouse 
on X86.

So it show ACRN a bit better? But is there any big differences in design? I 
doubt this.


You also need to read the paper where the stats came from: They implemented APIC (GIC equivalent) pass-through also in ACRN, a feature that Jailhouse introduced in 2013, and then tried to compare that two Jailhouse and also RT-KVM. Unfortunately, there were configuration mistakes in both of those other setup. The one in Jailhouse they found themselves, redid the measurements, unsurprisingly found both to be the same then (no hypervisor involved anymore), but they didn't update their graphs, even not in the paper. The graphs where simply copied into that presentation.

I attended that session and offered the presenter afterwards to review their results in the future if those are taken over a stack they are not familiar with. That would have also helped to avoid the architectural mistake in their RT-KVM measurement setup which gave them result of by one order of magnitude.

BTW, regarding direct interrupt delivery on ARM: In https://lwn.net/Articles/820830, it is reported that Bao has "found a way to map interrupts directly into guests". I didn't find the time yet to check if that is actually exit-free delivery, and that as a smart trick or rather a problematic hack. Or if that sentence is rather a misunderstanding. There is also the sentence: "Interrupts [...] have to be mediated through the hypervisor, which is unfortunate since that increases latency."

Jan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jailhouse" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jailhouse-dev/38ffb4dc-20d6-3404-cc61-ea08ea8066f1%40siemens.com.

Reply via email to