From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: lguest/host benchmarks. Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:43:44 +1000 Message-ID: <1181385825.11961.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1180780059.9228.72.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1181362602.6025.72.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Nicholas Mc Guire Cc: Jens Axboe , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 06:44 +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > so the file issue is most likely a memory exhaustion effect on the guest Right, I usually run w/ 512M of ram per guest, so I haven't noticed. > we still are checking things related to the absolute values reported - not > yet convinced that timing is that correct on the guest. It's possible, which is why virtbench runs external to the guest. I never trust anyone's non-hardware clocks 8) > > This can be optimized by enhancing the switcher itself to walk the guest > > page tables and reflect is straight back into the guest if it's not > > mapped there. This shouldn't actually be too hard, but I wonder if it's > > worth the complexity... > > > Even if it were it should not go into lguest - the really nice thing about > it is that one can actually understand it ! I agree, but I can probably do this in under 50 lines. As you say, not worth it if it doesn't hurt real applications. Thanks, and thanks for the kind words about lguest! Rusty.