[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api
From: |
Jan Kiszka |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api |
Date: |
Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:29:21 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080226 SUSE/2.0.0.12-1.1 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 |
On 2012-02-07 17:21, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 10:18 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-02-07 17:02, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 02/07/2012 05:17 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>> On 02/07/2012 06:03 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>>> On 02/06/2012 09:11 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not so sure. ioeventfds and a future mmio-over-socketpair have
>>>>>> to put the
>>>>>> kthread to sleep while it waits for the other end to process it.
>>>>>> This is
>>>>>> effectively equivalent to a heavy weight exit. The difference in
>>>>>> cost is
>>>>>> dropping to userspace which is really neglible these days (< 100
>>>>>> cycles).
>>>>>
>>>>> On what machine did you measure these wonderful numbers?
>>>>
>>>> A syscall is what I mean by "dropping to userspace", not the cost of a
>>>> heavy weight exit.
>>>
>>> Ah. But then ioeventfd has that as well, unless the other end is in the
>>> kernel too.
>>>
>>>> I think a heavy weight exit is still around a few thousand cycles.
>>>>
>>>> Any nehalem class or better processor should have a syscall cost of
>>>> around that unless I'm wildly mistaken.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's what I remember too.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But I agree a heavyweight exit is probably faster than a double
>>>>> context switch
>>>>> on a remote core.
>>>>
>>>> I meant, if you already need to take a heavyweight exit (and you do to
>>>> schedule something else on the core), than the only additional cost is
>>>> taking a syscall return to userspace *first* before scheduling another
>>>> process. That overhead is pretty low.
>>>
>>> Yeah.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't there another level in between just scheduling and full syscall
>> return if the user return notifier has some real work to do?
>
> Depends on whether you're scheduling a kthread or a userspace process, no?
> If
Kthreads can't return, of course. User space threads /may/ do so. And
then there needs to be a differences between host and guest in the
tracked MSRs. I think to recall it's a question of another few hundred
cycles.
Jan
> you're eventually going to end up in userspace, you have to do the full heavy
> weight exit.
>
> If you're scheduling to a kthread, it's better to do the type of trickery
> that
> ioeventfd does and just turn it into a function call.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
>
>>
>> Jan
>>
>
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Rob Earhart, 2012/02/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Rob Earhart, 2012/02/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Avi Kivity, 2012/02/05
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Rob Earhart, 2012/02/06
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Anthony Liguori, 2012/02/06
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Avi Kivity, 2012/02/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Anthony Liguori, 2012/02/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Avi Kivity, 2012/02/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Jan Kiszka, 2012/02/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Anthony Liguori, 2012/02/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api,
Jan Kiszka <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Avi Kivity, 2012/02/15
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Anthony Liguori, 2012/02/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Avi Kivity, 2012/02/15
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Avi Kivity, 2012/02/07
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Gleb Natapov, 2012/02/05