Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758147AbZCBMJj (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 07:09:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753210AbZCBMJa (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 07:09:30 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:47445 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752253AbZCBMJ3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 07:09:29 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:08:59 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Andrew Morton , "H. Peter Anvin" , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Xen-devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support Message-ID: <20090302120859.GB29015@elte.hu> References: <1235786365-17744-1-git-send-email-jeremy@goop.org> <20090227212812.26d02f34.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090228084254.GA29342@elte.hu> <49A907DD.6010408@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49A907DD.6010408@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1641 Lines: 39 * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: >> Personally i'd like to see a sufficient reply to the >> mmap-perf paravirt regressions pointed out by Nick and >> reproduced by myself as well. (They were in the 4-5% >> macro-performance range iirc, which is huge.) >> >> So i havent seen any real progress on reducing native kernel >> overhead with paravirt. Patches were sent but no measurements >> were done and it seemed to have all fizzled out while the >> dom0 patches are being pursued. >> > > Hm, I'm not sure what you want me to do here. I sent out > patches, they got merged, I posted the results of my > measurements showing that the patches made a substantial > improvement. I'd love to see confirmation from others that > the patches help them, but I don't think you can say I've been > unresponsive about this. Have i missed a mail of yours perhaps? I dont have any track of you having posted mmap-perf perfcounters results. I grepped my mbox and the last mail i saw from you containing the string "mmap-perf" is from January 20, and it only includes my numbers. What i'd expect you to do is to proactively measure the overhead of CONFIG_PARAVIRT overhead of the native kernel, and analyze and address the results. Not just minimalistically reply to my performance measurements - as that does not really scale in the long run. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/