Re: [PATCH 0/8] KVM updates for 2.6.20-rc2

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>   
>>> As SVN has shown it, we can rely on VMX state save/load to become 
>>> faster in the future. So we definitely shouldnt design for a 
>>> small-scale overhead in first-generation silicon.
>>>       
>> In this case I think the documentation indicates their long term 
>> plans.  However, the only real answer is to measure.
>>     
>
> yeah. Would be nice to see some hard numbers about how many cycles all 
> these context load/save variants take.
>
>   

PIO latency on AMD (including a trip to qemu and back) is 5500 cycles 
[1].  Intel is significantly higher.

[1] http://virt.kernelnewbies.org/KVM/Performance

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV