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

[Xen-devel] performance regression from c/s 21647:cfba1560054a

To: "Stefano Stabellini" <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <glguida@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] performance regression from c/s 21647:cfba1560054a
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:23:55 +0000
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 03:26:10 -0800
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/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>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stefano, Gianluca,

in this c/s you did, besides the main purpose of the change, an
adjustment to check_for_early_unshadow() in that L2...L4 entries
would no longer be attempted to get unshadowed. Neither the
patch description nor the added comment really make clear why
this was done, and we now got a customer report regarding this
causing considerable slowdown in process creation/destruction
intensive workloads (e.g. shell scripts).

Would you explain that change, and whether it is reasonable to
revert that part of said c/s?

Thanks, Jan


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