From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: emulator: do not needlesly sync registers from
 emulator ctxt to vcpu
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:43:50 +0200
Message-ID: <20110330134350.GA7766@redhat.com>
References: <20110330104727.GS7766@redhat.com>
 <4D930B0D.4090809@redhat.com>
 <20110330112243.GV7766@redhat.com>
 <20110330114333.GW7766@redhat.com>
 <4D931F73.90704@redhat.com>
 <20110330124828.GX7766@redhat.com>
 <20110330132618.GY7766@redhat.com>
 <4D93301E.3080200@redhat.com>
 <20110330133613.GZ7766@redhat.com>
 <4D9332F5.1060208@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: mtosatti@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20156 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755150Ab1C3Nnw (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:43:52 -0400
Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2UDhpkC005467
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:43:51 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4D9332F5.1060208@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:41:09PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 03:36 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >>  It's wierd.  Do you get perf hits in the copying?
> >>
> >How can I check. The memcpy is inlined.
> >
> 
> perf annotate x86_emulate_instruction
> 
> (newer perf allows you to get there interactively from 'perf report')
> 
> >>  Copying a couple of hot cache lines shouldn't take any measurable
Ah, forgot about it:

First one:
27.71 :           1179f:       f3 a5                   rep movsl %ds:(%rsi),%es:(%rdi)

Second one:
32.68 :           11888:       f3 a5                   rep movsl %ds:(%rsi),%es:(%rdi)

> >>  time compared to a heavyweight exit.
> >>
> >The whole function takes only 1.5% CPU. Perf measures how much this
> >function become faster and heavyweight exit is not part of the function.
> 
> It's still relative to exit cost.  If the total exit was 2 us, then
> a 1% decrease in cost translates to 40 ns.
> 
> (well, that's not unlikely for a 256 byte memcpy, but let's be sure).
> 
> -- 
> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
			Gleb.