| Message ID | 1309361388-30163-3-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Glauber Costa wrote: > This patch is simple, put in a different commit so it can be more easily > shared between guest and hypervisor. It just defines a named constant > to indicate the enable bit for KVM-specific MSRs. > > Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com> > CC: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> > CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com> > CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > CC: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> > CC: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> > CC: Eric B Munson <emunson@mgebm.net> My mail provider seems to have dropped patch 1 of the series so I can't reply directly to it, please add my Tested-by there as well. Tested-by: Eric B Munson <emunson@mgebm.net>
On 06/30/2011 12:56 AM, Eric B Munson wrote: > My mail provider seems to have dropped patch 1 of the series so I can't reply > directly to it, please add my Tested-by there as well. How did you test it then?
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 06/30/2011 12:56 AM, Eric B Munson wrote: > >My mail provider seems to have dropped patch 1 of the series so I can't reply > >directly to it, please add my Tested-by there as well. > > How did you test it then? > I built host and guest kernels with the patches and pinned a while(1) and the CPU thread from qemu to CPU 2 on the host. I then started the same while(1) process in guest and verified that I see ~50% steal time reported. I then built 2.6.39 (just the code I had present) on the guest and time it while it was competing with the while(1) on the host for CPU time. Next I built the guest kernel with STEAL_TIME=N and reran the kernel compile to make sure that there weren't any huge variations in performace. Eric
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 06/30/2011 09:59 AM, Eric B Munson wrote: > >On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > >>On 06/30/2011 12:56 AM, Eric B Munson wrote: > >>>My mail provider seems to have dropped patch 1 of the series so I can't reply > >>>directly to it, please add my Tested-by there as well. > >> > >>How did you test it then? > >> > > > >I built host and guest kernels with the patches and pinned a while(1) and the > >CPU thread from qemu to CPU 2 on the host. I then started the same while(1) > >process in guest and verified that I see ~50% steal time reported. > > > >I then built 2.6.39 (just the code I had present) on the guest and time it > >while it was competing with the while(1) on the host for CPU time. Next I > >built the guest kernel with STEAL_TIME=N and reran the kernel compile to make > >sure that there weren't any huge variations in performace. > > > >Eric > I think what Avi means is, it won't even compile without PATCH 1/9. > If you don't have it, how could you test it ? > It made it to several lkml archives.
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_para.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_para.h index a427bf7..d6cd79b 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_para.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_para.h @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ #define MSR_KVM_WALL_CLOCK 0x11 #define MSR_KVM_SYSTEM_TIME 0x12 +#define KVM_MSR_ENABLED 1 /* Custom MSRs falls in the range 0x4b564d00-0x4b564dff */ #define MSR_KVM_WALL_CLOCK_NEW 0x4b564d00 #define MSR_KVM_SYSTEM_TIME_NEW 0x4b564d01
This patch is simple, put in a different commit so it can be more easily shared between guest and hypervisor. It just defines a named constant to indicate the enable bit for KVM-specific MSRs. Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com> CC: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> CC: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> CC: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> CC: Eric B Munson <emunson@mgebm.net> --- arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_para.h | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)