Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754451AbZFBWMS (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:12:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751088AbZFBWML (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:12:11 -0400 Received: from static-ip-85-25-59-232.inaddr.intergenia.de ([85.25.59.232]:45619 "EHLO smtp.eikelenboom.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750780AbZFBWML convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:12:11 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 00:12:03 +0200 From: Sander Eikelenboom Organization: Eikelenboom IT services X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <819818298.20090603001203@eikelenboom.it> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on nativekernels MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 850 Lines: 21 The argument that the 1% perfomance hit for native kernels requires extra work for package maintainers because they have to make a seperate package for native (without the performance hit) and a xen version (with paravirt_ops) seems bogus. At the moment they also have to provide the 2 packages, 1 native recent kernel, and 1 older back or forward ported xen kernel (2.6.18 or 2.6.26 for debian) So this probably wouldn't change much, although it would be nice for paravirt_ops to perform like native, i think it shouldn't have to be a show stopper for inclusion of Xen in mainline. -- Sander -- 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/