Re: [Xen-devel] Xen optimization

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Stefano,

On 11/1/18 8:20 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 10/31/18 8:35 PM, Milan Boberic wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > Interesting. Could you confirm the commit you were using (or the point
> > > > release)?
> > > > Stefano's number were based on commit "fuzz: update README.afl example"
> > > > 55a04feaa1f8ab6ef7d723fbb1d39c6b96ad184a which is an unreleased version
> > > > of Xen.
> > > All Xens I used are from Xilinx git repository because I have
> > > UltraZed-EG board which has Zynq UltraScale SoC.
> > > Under branches you can find Xen 4.8, 4.9,  etc.
> > > I always used latest commit: c227fe68589bdfb36b85f7b78c034a40c95b9a30
> > > Here is link to it:
> > > https://github.com/Xilinx/xen/tree/xilinx/stable-4.9
> > This branch is quite ahead of the branch Stefano's used. There are 94 commits
> > more just for Arm specific code.
> >
> > What I am interested is to see if we are able to reproduce Stefano's number
> > with the same branch. So we can have a clue whether there are a slow down
> > introduce in new code.
> >
> > Stefano, you mention you will look at reproducing the numbers. Do you have any
> > update on this?
> No, I haven't had any time. Aside from the Xen version, another
> difference is the interrupt source. I used the physical timer for
> testing.
I would be actually surprised that the interrupt latency varies with 
virtualization depending on the interrupts...
If that were the case, then doing the latency on the physical interrupt 
(unlikely going to be used by virtualized guest) was quite pointless.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel