On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 11:40 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> I use virtbench (http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/virtbench) to try
> > to measure optimization results; it still needs more tests (and an
> > explicit kvm backend).
>
> A kvm backend would be appreciated.
Yes, and patches are most welcome 8) Actually, I'll work on this week.
> >> - after modifying a pte, kvm doesn't preload the modified pte into
> >> shadow, but instead lets the guest fault it in
> > lguest doesn't either, but don't you still want the fault to update the
> > host accessed bit?
>
> The story here is that the guest is handling a pagefault and writing the
> new guest pte. kvm traps the write (guest pagetables are write
> protected), and has the option of updating the shadow pte to reflect the
> guest pte.
>
> The clever guest kernel will set the accessed bit (and the dirty bit on
> writable ptes) to avoid an rmw cycle by the hardware pagetable walker.
>
> [two instrumented runs later]
>
> Both Linux and Windows seem to do this optimization.
Right. This (trivial!) optimization wins lguest a good 10%:
Before:
Time for one Copy-on-Write fault: 13622 nsec
Time to exec client once: 1085481 nsec
Time for one fork/exit/wait: 700796 nsec
After:
Time for one Copy-on-Write fault: 12036 nsec
Time to exec client once: 969899 nsec
Time for one fork/exit/wait: 664601 nsec
Thanks!
Rusty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
