Xen 
 
Home About Xen.org Xen Xen Summit Wiki Mailing List Bug Tracker Xen Downloads
 
   
 

xen-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Optimizing x86-64 xenlinux using global pagesfor

To: "Andrew Theurer" <habanero@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Optimizing x86-64 xenlinux using global pagesfor user mode (take 2)
From: "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:18:58 -0700
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:19:30 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcbMQYTj9mdXI97MRbi+4E2uKOxp3gAA0T4w
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Optimizing x86-64 xenlinux using global pagesfor user mode (take 2)
Andrew Theurer wrote:
> Ian Pratt wrote:
>>> The previous patch had a problem with the builder, which constructs
>>> the initial page tables with the USER bit on. And Xen couldn't
>>> distinguish kernel or use pages. It was partially checked avoiding
>>> the bug, and it's finished with this patch.
>> 
>> Thanks. Have you any updated benchmark numbers as the bug could have
>> been giving quite a performance boost before.

Looks like part of the boost was realized by the bug, but I still see
consistent and visible improvements with lmbench. If I turn on the
global bits for the kernel pages as well, I see more improvements, which
are comparable with or better than before. I think we need to do macro
benchmarks to see how this helps. 

> 
> FWIW, I had been running more extensive testing on changeset 11225
> (before global-bit) and 11229 (global-bit with revert/fix for dom0
> builder), and they do not match the initial testing I did with rev
> 11118 + global_1 patch.  In fact, I am not seeing really any
> improvement.  I am not sure what is wrong.  Should I just test
> xen-unstable-tip+newest_patch and see where we stand?
> 

Yes, please. You shouldn't have observed any performance difference
between 11225 and 11229 because the changeset 11226 did not enable the
global bit. 

> -Andrew Theurer

Jun
---
Intel Open Source Technology Center

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>