From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754900AbdC1RR4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:17:56 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54]:37674 "EHLO mail-wm0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754209AbdC1RRz (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:17:55 -0400 Message-ID: <1490721452.1907.25.camel@arista.com> Subject: Impact of CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y / mmap benchmark From: Radu Rendec To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 18:17:32 +0100 Organization: Arista Networks Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6 (3.22.6-1.fc25) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, I'm trying to assess the performance impact of enabling PARAVIRT (and XEN) in a custom kernel configuration. I came across a very old thread (https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/13/449) on this topic and the conclusion back then was that the performance impact was (arguably) around 1%. Does anyone still have a copy of Ingo Molnar's mmap-perf.c program (the old link is broken)? Would it still be relevant to use it for measuring performance in case of PARAVIRT? Last but not least, has anyone looked into PARAVIRT performance more recently? Thank you! Best regards, Radu Rendec