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][VT] partial PIC to HV patch

To: "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCh][VT] partial PIC to HV patch
From: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:24:52 +0800
Cc: xen-devel List <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:22:46 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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: AcW/X5nmEkvhhyZoR4eLdQN6yQD4rAAD8mnQ
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCh][VT] partial PIC to HV patch
Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2005, at 10:33, Dong, Eddie wrote:
> 
>> Keir:
>>      This is patch to move PIC mask/EOI access to HV for performance
>> and we saw about 5% performance increasement with this patch.
> 
> I'm not sure about this. I don't much like splitting the
> implementation of a device across both Xen and qemu -- I'd rather
> implement entirely within one or the other. Our eventual aim should
> be to move all non-Xen device models into the context of the vmx
> domain (running as a paravirt 'mini domain' in rings 1 to 3 of the
> root vmcs). This might reduce latency enough for most devices to
> avoid distasteful 'split' device-model implementations.

Yes agree, the eventual goal should move device model to mini-domain.

> 
> In the case of local APICs, I/O APICs and the legacy PIC I can accept
> that, even in the above model there will probably be a measurable
> performance improvement to implementing these devices within Xen. But

For PIC case, cpusoak saw 5% performance increasement on REL4U1.

> I think this should be done by moving their complete implementation
> into Xen and defining a clean interface to device models running in
> domain0 and/or rings 1-3. In the case of the PIC, this could be done
> by having a virtualised 'interrupt wire' for each device (e.g.,
> represent an 'interrupt edge' by a special call into Xen that runs
> the PIC device model).

Yes, moving entire PIC into HV is another good approach.

> 
> The other argument for putting the PIC and IO-APIC in Xen is that the
> PIT is already there, and having it call out into a non-Xen device
> model to send interrupts is rather gross.
> 

Understand, so you prefer to see entire PIC in HV at least for Xen3.0.
Right?
Or should we use this patch for now and do various performance tunning
in 
parallel?

>   -- Keir

Thanks,eddie

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

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