[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86 hvm: freeze PIT/LAPIC timer emulation while its IRQ is masked
Cui, Dexuan writes: > Looks the little win doesn't deserve the increased complexity in code. Agreed. I don't strongly push my patches. But this win is given by 2/2 patch and it fixes a certain bug. Besides, 1/2 patch simplifies the code, I think. > BTW, recent Intel CPUs run much faster with respect to VMEntry/VMExit and > VMREAD/VMWRITE, so I don't think the SW optimizatin is appearling here. :-) I have a "Mottainai"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mottainai) spirit. :-) Thanks, Kouya > > Thanks, > -- Dexuan > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser > Sent: 2009?9?16? 15:41 > To: Kouya Shimura > Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86 hvm: freeze PIT/LAPIC timer emulation > while its IRQ is masked > > On 16/09/2009 07:46, "Kouya Shimura" <kouya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I remade the patch and measured the performance win. Attached is > > a benchmark program which I wrote. It is complied by cygwin's gcc > > by -O2 and runs on Windows XP(32bit). And my cpu is > > Intel Core2 Quad Q9450@xxxxxxxx > > > > The result is that my patch saves 32 cycles(TSC) per one VM_EXIT(cpuid). > > (2696 tsc => 2664 tsc) > > > > The patch is split to two. I'll post them in another mail. > > That's really not enough of a win to bother with, is it. > > -- Keir > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |