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] Windows SMP

To: 'James Harper' <james.harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Huang <wei.huang2@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Windows SMP
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:50:50 +0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: Dirk, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Utterback <dirk.utterback@xxxxxxxxx>, Venefax <venefax@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:51:17 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <AEC6C66638C05B468B556EA548C1A77D0155014A@trantor>
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: <495A5332.1020204@xxxxxxx><C5805010.20A14%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <AEC6C66638C05B468B556EA548C1A77D01550148@trantor> <0A882F4D99BBF6449D58E61AAFD7EDD603BB4A3C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <AEC6C66638C05B468B556EA548C1A77D0155014A@trantor>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AclqzVmMSPSrJKoOjkW3kVbHoGxRxwAUqL0AAABM0MAAAESCUAAAfAfA
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Windows SMP
>From: James Harper [mailto:james.harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 4:35 PM
>
>> >Is there a similar approach that would work on an Intel system?
>> 
>> On Intel CPU with FlexPriority support, you don't need patching
>> guest since TPR accesses would be recognized  by hardware
>> for acceleration automatically.
>> 
>> But on CPUs without h/w acceleration support, you may expect
>> borrow that overall idea, but instead of patching with LOCK MOV
>> CR0, you would replace it with a piece of code lines to emulate
>> similar acceleration as what h/w is assumed to do.
>> 
>
>Do you have an example :)
>
>One thing Keir suggested would be to install the patch to jump to some
>code which compared the value being written to the TPR 
>register with the
>value last written, and only perform the actual write if the values are

That's basically what I meant, and also what KVM does today. 
VM-exit in such case is only proactively requested by vmcall
in inserted lines if Xen emulation logic has to be involved.

>different. I can do that without too much fuss but if there is 
>something
>faster then even better.
>

If you compare to VM-exit overhead for every TPR access, above
is already far far faster. Of course fewer memory accesses used
in inserted lines, less overhead you'll see then.:-)

Thanks,
Kevin

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

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