Re: [Xen-devel] Why is 'emulate' as good as writable PT's?

[Andrew Theurer <habanero@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 6 Jun 2006, at 21:28, Andrew Theurer wrote:
>
> > Yes, we definitely have a problem here.  Tons of flushes with 
> > modified=1, and lots with <=10.  The three benchmarks all seem to hit 
> > the same areas.  Here is the output from running SDET, with snippets 
> > from System.map mixed in:
> Is this PAE? SMP guest?
>
> Do you know much about the SDET benchmark? For example, do you know 
> how big the mprotect() calls it makes are likely to be? If vma's are 
> small and fairly sparse then the writable pagetable batching won't be 
> a win.
1-way SMP kernel, PAE.  not sure about the mprotect() calls.  SDET 
basically calls a lot of utilities like ps, gcc, ispell, etc.  Is it 
feasible to "xen-ify" unmap_vmas() and copy_page_range(), such that we 
use explicit hypercalls instead of faulting on the writes?
-Andrew


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel