WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][RFC] FPU LWP 0/5: patch description

To: Wei Huang <wei.huang2@xxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][RFC] FPU LWP 0/5: patch description
From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:17:03 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4DA77BC4.8040602@xxxxxxx>
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <C9CD2137.16600%keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx 4DA77BC4.8040602@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Wait... a context switch takes over 4 billion cycles?
Not likely!

And please check your division.  I get the same
answer from "dc" only when I use lowercase hex
numbers and dc complains about unimplemented chars,
else I get 0.033%... also unlikely.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wei Huang [mailto:wei.huang2@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:57 PM
> To: Keir Fraser
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][RFC] FPU LWP 0/5: patch description
> 
> Hi Keir,
> 
> I ran a quick test to calculate the overhead of __fpu_unlazy_save() and
> __fpu_unlazy_restore(), which are used to save/restore LWP state. Here
> are the results:
> 
> (1) tsc_total: total time used for context_switch() in x86/domain.c
> (2) tsc_unlazy: total time used for __fpu_unlazy_save() +
> __fpu_unlazy_retore()
> 
> One example:
> (XEN) tsc_unlazy=0x00000000008ae174
> (XEN) tsc_total=0x00000001028b4907
> 
> So the overhead is about 0.2% of total time used by context_switch().
> Of
> course, this is just one example. I would say the overhead ratio would
> be <1% for most cases.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Wei
> 
> 
> 
> On 04/14/2011 04:09 PM, Keir Fraser wrote:
> > On 14/04/2011 21:37, "Wei Huang"<wei.huang2@xxxxxxx>  wrote:
> >
> >> The following patches support AMD lightweight profiling.
> >>
> >> Because LWP isn't tracked by CR0.TS bit, we clean up the FPU code to
> >> handle lazy and unlazy FPU states differently. Lazy FPU state (such
> as
> >> SSE, YMM) is handled when #NM is triggered. Unlazy state, such as
> LWP,
> >> is saved and restored on each vcpu context switch. To simplify the
> code,
> >> we also add a mask option to xsave/xrstor function.
> > How much cost is added to context switch paths in the (overwhelmingly
> > likely) case that LWP is not being used by the guest? Is this adding
> a whole
> > lot of unconditional overhead for a feature that noone uses?
> >
> >   -- Keir
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> -Wei
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Xen-devel mailing list
> >> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

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