From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wei Huang <wei.huang2@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] FPU LWP 0/5: patch description
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:57:08 -0500
Message-ID: <4DA77BC4.8040602@amd.com>
References: <C9CD2137.16600%keir.xen@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <C9CD2137.16600%keir.xen@gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com>
Cc: "'xen-devel@lists.xensource.com'" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hi Keir,

I ran a quick test to calculate the overhead of __fpu_unlazy_save() and 
__fpu_unlazy_restore(), which are used to save/restore LWP state. Here 
are the results:

(1) tsc_total: total time used for context_switch() in x86/domain.c
(2) tsc_unlazy: total time used for __fpu_unlazy_save() + 
__fpu_unlazy_retore()

One example:
(XEN) tsc_unlazy=0x00000000008ae174
(XEN) tsc_total=0x00000001028b4907

So the overhead is about 0.2% of total time used by context_switch(). Of 
course, this is just one example. I would say the overhead ratio would 
be <1% for most cases.

Thanks,
-Wei



On 04/14/2011 04:09 PM, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 14/04/2011 21:37, "Wei Huang"<wei.huang2@amd.com>  wrote:
>
>> The following patches support AMD lightweight profiling.
>>
>> Because LWP isn't tracked by CR0.TS bit, we clean up the FPU code to
>> handle lazy and unlazy FPU states differently. Lazy FPU state (such as
>> SSE, YMM) is handled when #NM is triggered. Unlazy state, such as LWP,
>> is saved and restored on each vcpu context switch. To simplify the code,
>> we also add a mask option to xsave/xrstor function.
> How much cost is added to context switch paths in the (overwhelmingly
> likely) case that LWP is not being used by the guest? Is this adding a whole
> lot of unconditional overhead for a feature that noone uses?
>
>   -- Keir
>
>> Thanks,
>> -Wei
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
>