From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753541AbYIBQPM (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:15:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751248AbYIBQPA (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:15:00 -0400 Received: from smtp04.osg.ufl.edu ([128.227.74.71]:38524 "EHLO smtp.ufl.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751236AbYIBQO7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:14:59 -0400 Message-ID: <1759827749.278411220372073312.JavaMail.osg@osgjas03.cns.ufl.edu> Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:14:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "CHADHA,VINEET" To: Arjan van de Ven , "CHADHA,VINEET" Subject: Re: TLB evaluation for Linux Cc: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: GatorMail WebMail (http://GatorMail.sf.net/) X-Originating-IP: 10.5.149.137 [10.5.149.137] X-UFL-Spam-Status: hits=-2.5, required=5, tests=ALL_TRUSTED,TW_VL X-UFL-Scanned-By: CNS Open Systems Group (http://open-systems.ufl.edu/services/smtp-relay/) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I don't have a reference, but I'd not be surprised to see on > virtual > machines for this to be even stronger; each invlpg would be a > hypercall, compared to only one for the total flush. > I agree that overhead could be more in virtual machines. Questions is that does VMs are designed with evaluation of performance issues at micro-architetural level. Is this the best design for virtual machines or Linux ? I don't see many numbers or published paper to make a claim. Regards, Vineet