| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Why is 'emulate' as good as writable PT's?
Keir Fraser wrote:
On 6 Jun 2006, at 21:28, Andrew Theurer wrote:
Yes, we definitely have a problem here. Tons of flushes with
modified=1, and lots with <=10. The three benchmarks all seem to hit
the same areas. Here is the output from running SDET, with snippets
from System.map mixed in:
Is this PAE? SMP guest?
Do you know much about the SDET benchmark? For example, do you know
how big the mprotect() calls it makes are likely to be? If vma's are
small and fairly sparse then the writable pagetable batching won't be
a win.
1-way SMP kernel, PAE. not sure about the mprotect() calls. SDET
basically calls a lot of utilities like ps, gcc, ispell, etc. Is it
feasible to "xen-ify" unmap_vmas() and copy_page_range(), such that we
use explicit hypercalls instead of faulting on the writes?
-Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home