On Wednesday 30 July 2008 15:30:10 Nick Piggin wrote: > On Wednesday 30 July 2008 14:39, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Before: 5.93 seconds > > After: 5.40 seconds > > > > (Counts of slow vs fastpath in this usage are 6092 and 2852462 > > respectively.) > > > > And more importantly for lguest, the code is simpler. > > Cool. That's actually a fairly significant straight-line performance > improvement, given that the lguest processes are running one-at-a-time > right? (and not contending on the locks or bouncing cachelines too much)
Yep. I mean, the performance is abysmal either way (native for this is about 10x faster), but it would be interesting to see kvm numbers as they have a more sophisticated shadow page table setup. Not as trivial as lguest since they seem to use the mm sem to protect other things... Cheers, Rusty. _______________________________________________ Lguest mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/lguest
