From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm-userspace: Make PC speaker emulation aware of in-kernel PIT
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:59:11 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49F36B8F.2090405@codemonkey.ws> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49F33A1A.3060201@web.de>
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>
>>> Jan,
>>>
>>> While the patch itself looks fine, IMO it would be better to move all
>>> of the timer handling to userspace, except the performance critical
>>> parts,
>>> since most of it is generic. Either periodic or one-shot timer, with:
>>>
>>>
>> The reason for having the PIT in-kernel is not performance. The PIT is
>> not performance sensitive.
>>
>
> I think that depends. Some OSes (in some configurations) use the PIT
> counter as clock source and/or program it regularly in one-shot mode. An
> aging use case, but still a valid one.
>
I can't find the thread, but this has been discussed at length before.
The justification has always been for time drift correction. If you
crunch the numbers, even at a 1024HZ, there just aren't enough exits to
really make a difference from a performance perspective.
Just to state it more clearly, if you assume an additional 5us to drop
to userspace (which is absurdly high, but let's stick with it), 1024
exits per second comes out to about 5ms which is only 0.5% in terms of
CPU consumption.
The APIC is quite a bit more understandable because especially with SMP,
you can generate a very high number of interrupts per second and taking
a drop to userspace for every EOI can be start to matter with exit rates
in the hundreds of thousands.
>> It's because it was easier to do interrupt catch-up by pushing the PIT
>> into the kernel which IMHO was the wrong path to go down.
>>
>
> Pushing the emulation of port 0x61 into the kernel was a mistake we now
> have to deal with. I'm not that sure about the PIT itself.
>
I agree re: port 0x61. I'm just saying that there is no point in moving
just the non "performance critical" components to userspace as Marcelo
suggests because the whole thing is non "performance critical".
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-25 19:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-23 20:24 [PATCH] kvm-userspace: Make PC speaker emulation aware of in-kernel PIT Jan Kiszka
2009-04-25 0:13 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2009-04-25 13:08 ` Anthony Liguori
2009-04-25 16:28 ` Jan Kiszka
2009-04-25 19:59 ` Anthony Liguori [this message]
2009-04-27 13:00 ` Sheng Yang
2009-04-28 4:44 ` David S. Ahern
2009-04-28 7:02 ` Dor Laor
2009-04-27 22:32 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2009-05-04 9:34 ` Avi Kivity
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=49F36B8F.2090405@codemonkey.ws \
--to=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=jan.kiszka@web.de \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox