From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gianluca Guida Subject: Re: [RFC][Patches] Xen 1GB Page Table Support Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:16:31 +0000 Message-ID: <49C3DD7F.3000000@eu.citrix.com> References: <49C365C1.6050203@eu.citrix.com> <49C3A76F.5080508@eu.citrix.com> <49C3A67B.9050209@eu.citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <49C3A67B.9050209@eu.citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: George Dunlap Cc: Dan Magenheimer , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Tim Deegan , Gianluca Guida , Wei Huang , Keir Fraser List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Gianluca Guida wrote: > George Dunlap wrote: >> It might be nice to have some quick "sanity check" benchmarks, just to >> make sure that adding the 1G pages won't hurt performance for the normal >> case... > > Might do it, but I don't think it's necessary. What I meant here is: checking that shadow performance hasn't decreased shouldn't be necessary. It should be still worth, though, if we'd get the kind of improvements this patch has on HAP. Any numbers? Gianluca