Avi Kivity wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
>>>> static int mmu_topup_memory_caches(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>> {
>>>>     int r;
>>>>
>>>>     kvm_mmu_free_some_pages(vcpu);
>>>>     r = mmu_topup_memory_cache(&vcpu->mmu_pte_chain_cache,
>>>>                    pte_chain_cache, 4);
>>>>     if (r)
>>>>         goto out;
>>>>     r = mmu_topup_memory_cache(&vcpu->mmu_rmap_desc_cache,
>>>>                    rmap_desc_cache, 1);
>>>>     if (r)
>>>>         goto out;
>>>>     r = mmu_topup_memory_cache_page(&vcpu->mmu_page_cache, 8);
>>>>     if (r)
>>>>         goto out;
>>>>     r = mmu_topup_memory_cache(&vcpu->mmu_page_header_cache,
>>>>                    mmu_page_header_cache, 4);
>>>> out:
>>>>     return r;
>>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> These are the (4, 1, 8, 4) values in the call to 
>>> mmu_topup_memory_cache.  Perhaps one of them is too low.
>>
>> Sure.  Would this be affected at all by your tpr patch?  

Using the following patch, I'm getting really good results.  I'll keep 
running test cases tonight and see if I can trigger anything.

Windows is *much* faster with your patch, very nice work!

Regards,

Anthony Liguori