Re: Performance numbers on PV-on-HVM

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

 On 10/01/2010 07:16 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Pasi K??rkk??inen wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 03:06:12PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Christian Zoffoli wrote:
>>>> Il 29/09/2010 11:10, Stefano Stabellini ha scritto:
>>>> [cut]
>>>>> Yes, you are right.
>>>>> A little while back I backported the whole series to 2.6.32 and the
>>>>> result was included the Jeremy's pvops main branch, but I haven't kept
>>>>> it completely up to date.
>>>>> The new changes that are only in the 2.6.35-rc5-pvhvm-v7 branch regards
>>>>> PV spinlocks, the balloon driver and the PV console.
>>>> that's a good news but in my experience the pv_ops kernel is not as
>>>> stable as the suse xenified kernel
>>>> ...imho the best would be to have clean patches for a 3.6.32.x vanilla
>>>> kernel ...so we can do packages close to the official ones ...with only
>>>> this great addition.
>>>>
>>>  
>>> I have just done a backport to 2.6.32 of the whole series, branch name
>>> 2.6.32-pvhvm; I'll try to keep it up to date.
>>> It should be easy to rebase the series on the latest 2.6.32 stable
>>> kernel or to apply CVE fixes on top of this branch.
>>>
>> Hopefully Jeremy merges 2.6.32-pvhvm to xen/stable-2.6.32.x branch..
>  
> The problem is that Jeremy's stable branch is sufficiently different
> from stable 2.6.32 that the port in non-trivial.
> It would probably easier for him to cherry-pick the last 6 patches in
> the series.

I tried this, but it is a bit awkward:

Two of them have already been applied verbatim.

The blkfront name patch clashes with something similar that's already in
xen/next (the version I currently have does xlbd_reserve_minors(), but
this branch's patch doesn't).  I don't know which version to take.

The hvc console patches clash fairly badly with the dom0 ones; nothing
fundamental, but fiddly.

The balloon.c changes clash with the largepage ballooning stuff.

    J