All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
To: Tommie McAfee <tommie.mcafee@unisys.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
Subject: Re: qemu-dm performance
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:12:46 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4511A0BE.7030701@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1158782504.4960.142.camel@mah-chine>

There was a long thread about this topic already plus a patch floating 
around.  I don't think vram_dirty is the problem.

vram_dirty seems to be Xen-specific.  Presumably, since we map the 
framebuffer directly into the guest, we cannot use write-faulting 
anymore to track dirtying.  Instead, it looks like we rely on a double 
buffer to determine which portions of the screen change.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

Tommie McAfee wrote:
> I've been investigating why qemu-dm is causing %CPU to be high when
> viewing fully vitalized guests with vncviewer( about 20% usage ).  
>
> I've looked at the code, and one area that I'm curious about is the
> vram_dirty() function in tools/ioemu/hw/vga.c.  Please correct me if I'm
> wrong, but vram_dirty() seems to be using SSE inline functions to
> optimize it's bit-shifting/masking/loading/storing/comparison operations
> to see if dirty bits need to be set for a page within the shadow table.
> Also, I used gdb to make sure that I'm really executing the SSE
> optimized version of vram_dirty() that utilizes xmm0 registers.
>
> So out of curiosity, I decided to comment out calls to vram_dirty() from
> vga_draw_graphic() and the guests still behave normally, but CPU% now
> drops to 8%.  I know this is silly, and that I should expect a CPU drop
> for commenting out code, but why is vram_dirty() adding 12% CPU
> utilization when it can be commented out without crashing my viewer, and
> without me even noticing a difference in the guests behavior?  Can
> someone help me to understand the purpose vram_dirty serves and perhaps
> why it seems 2 be so CPU intensive without really changing the way my
> virtual guest behaves?
>
> Also, where else should I look in the code for possible explanations to
> why qemu-dm uses 20% CPU simply to view a guest.  All comments and
> suggestions regarding this matter are appreciated,
>
> thx,
>
> T. McAfee
> Xen Testing
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
>   

  reply	other threads:[~2006-09-20 20:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-09-20 20:01 qemu-dm performance Tommie McAfee
2006-09-20 20:12 ` Anthony Liguori [this message]
2006-09-20 21:03 ` Daniel P. Berrange
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-09-20 21:39 Dugger, Donald D
2006-09-21 17:45 ` McAfee, Tommie M
2006-09-21 19:23   ` Steven Smith
2006-09-22 18:58     ` McAfee, Tommie M
2006-09-22 19:31       ` Steven Smith
2006-09-22 19:34 Dugger, Donald D

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4511A0BE.7030701@us.ibm.com \
    --to=aliguori@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=tommie.mcafee@unisys.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.