[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api
From: |
Avi Kivity |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api |
Date: |
Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:03:59 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120131 Thunderbird/10.0 |
On 02/06/2012 09:11 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I'm not so sure. ioeventfds and a future mmio-over-socketpair have to
put the kthread to sleep while it waits for the other end to process
it. This is effectively equivalent to a heavy weight exit. The
difference in cost is dropping to userspace which is really neglible
these days (< 100 cycles).
On what machine did you measure these wonderful numbers?
But I agree a heavyweight exit is probably faster than a double context
switch on a remote core.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Rob Earhart, 2012/02/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Rob Earhart, 2012/02/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Avi Kivity, 2012/02/05
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Rob Earhart, 2012/02/06
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Anthony Liguori, 2012/02/06
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api,
Avi Kivity <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Anthony Liguori, 2012/02/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Avi Kivity, 2012/02/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Jan Kiszka, 2012/02/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Anthony Liguori, 2012/02/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Jan Kiszka, 2012/02/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Avi Kivity, 2012/02/15
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Anthony Liguori, 2012/02/07
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Avi Kivity, 2012/02/15
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Avi Kivity, 2012/02/07
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api, Gleb Natapov, 2012/02/05