From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 5] HVM performance improvements Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 10:59:21 +0100 Message-ID: <5200C8F9.8020204@citrix.com> References: <20130509140736.GK11427@reaktio.net> <20130805163104.GO2924@reaktio.net> <51FFDC8D.9090406@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: George Dunlap Cc: Keir Fraser , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/08/13 10:57, George Dunlap wrote: > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Andrew Cooper = wrote: >> On 05/08/13 17:31, Pasi K=E4rkk=E4inen wrote: >>> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 05:07:36PM +0300, Pasi K=E4rkk=E4inen wrote: >>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 04:41:31PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>>> This patch series contains the results of an investigation by XenServ= er >>>>> to try and reduce dom0 load during a VDI bootstorm. >>>>> >>>>> All patches reduce the number of polled IO traps to qemu that a booti= ng >>>>> HVM domain uses. >>>>> >>>>> The patches are unmodified from the last time I posted them to the li= st, >>>>> but are presented now outside of a feature freeze. >>>>> >>>> It's feature freeze time again :) >>>> >>>> Are these patches still necessary? for Xen 4.4? >>>> >>> Xen 4.3 is now out of the door, so should these patches be considered f= or Xen 4.4 ? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -- Pasi >>> >> I would dearly love for these patches to finally go in. The patches >> likely apply as-are. > Any chance you could re-post them? > > -George Sure - coming up ~Andrew