From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754601AbZB1JqT (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:46:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751277AbZB1JqK (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:46:10 -0500 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:33500 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750767AbZB1JqI (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:46:08 -0500 Message-ID: <49A907DD.6010408@goop.org> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:46:05 -0800 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Andrew Morton , "H. Peter Anvin" , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Xen-devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support References: <1235786365-17744-1-git-send-email-jeremy@goop.org> <20090227212812.26d02f34.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090228084254.GA29342@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20090228084254.GA29342@elte.hu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > Personally i'd like to see a sufficient reply to the mmap-perf > paravirt regressions pointed out by Nick and reproduced by > myself as well. (They were in the 4-5% macro-performance range > iirc, which is huge.) > > So i havent seen any real progress on reducing native kernel > overhead with paravirt. Patches were sent but no measurements > were done and it seemed to have all fizzled out while the dom0 > patches are being pursued. > Hm, I'm not sure what you want me to do here. I sent out patches, they got merged, I posted the results of my measurements showing that the patches made a substantial improvement. I'd love to see confirmation from others that the patches help them, but I don't think you can say I've been unresponsive about this. J