Re: [RFC 0/4] KVM in-kernel PM Timer implementation

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 12/14/2010 06:09 AM, Ulrich Obergfell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is an RFC through which I would like to get feedback on how the
> idea of in-kernel PM Timer would be received.
>
> The current implementation of PM Timer emulation is 'heavy-weight'
> because the code resides in qemu userspace. Guest operating systems
> that use PM Timer as a clock source (for example, older versions of
> Linux that do not have paravirtualized clock) would benefit from an
> in-kernel PM Timer emulation.
>
> Parts 1 thru 4 of this RFC contain experimental source code which
> I recently used to investigate the performance benefit. In a Linux
> guest, I was running a program that calls gettimeofday() 'n' times
> in a loop (the PM Timer register is read during each call). With
> in-kernel PM Timer, I observed a significant reduction of program
> execution time.
>    

I've played with this in the past.  Can you post real numbers, 
preferably, with a real work load?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> The experimental code emulates the PM Timer register in KVM kernel.
> All other components of ACPI PM remain in qemu userspace. Also, the
> 'timer carry interrupt' feature is not implemented in-kernel. If a
> guest operating system needs to enable the 'timer carry interrupt',
> the code takes care that PM Timer emulation falls back to userspace.
> However, I think the design of the code has sufficient flexibility,
> so that anyone who would want to add the 'timer carry interrupt'
> feature in-kernel could try to do so later on.
>
> Please review and please comment.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Uli Obergfell
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>