From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kiszka Subject: Re: Suggestions for testing VAPIC / TPR patching Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:14:53 +0100 Message-ID: <4F17DF0D.7020308@siemens.com> References: <4F17D5E3.1030105@siemens.com> <20120119090219.GG9571@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm To: Gleb Natapov Return-path: Received: from david.siemens.de ([192.35.17.14]:32114 "EHLO david.siemens.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755605Ab2ASJO6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:14:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20120119090219.GG9571@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2012-01-19 10:02, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 09:35:47AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Hi again, >> >> what is the best way to check if the TPR patching feature of qemu-kvm is >> working and performs efficiently? I suppose Windows XP guests, e.g.? How >> to measure this best? I'm about to start porting it to upstream and like >> to prepare a good test case. >> > Run WindowsXP on AMD HW without vapic and see number of TPR access exits. > Than run it with vapic and check again. Don't forget to check that > reboot et al work. So is this an optimization only for AMD CPUs or can it be reproduced on Intel as well? Any CPU feature dependencies? Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux