| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Since it's the same kernel image i think the only truly reliable
> > method would be to reboot between _different_ kernel images:
> > same instructions but randomly re-align variables both in terms
> > of absolute address and in terms of relative position to each
> > other. Plus randomize bootmem allocs and never-gets-freed-really
> > boot-time allocations.
> >
> > Really hard to do i think ...
> >
>
> Ouch, yeah.
>
> On the other hand, the numbers made sense to me, so I don't
> see why there is any reason to distrust them. They show a 5%
> overhead with pv_ops enabled, reduced to a 2% overhead with
> the changed. That is more or less what would match my
> intuition from seeing the code.
Yeah - it was Jeremy expressed doubt in the numbers, not me.
And we need to eliminate that 2% as well - 2% is still an awful
lot of native kernel overhead from a kernel feature that 95%+ of
users do not make any use of.
Ingo
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home