[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6013bf3f-c3bd-3836-e5e2-ea89cc2e556a@nod.at>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 00:02:41 +0200
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@...k.tugraz.at>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
"clementine.maurice@...k.tugraz.at" <clementine.maurice@...k.tugraz.at>,
"moritz.lipp@...k.tugraz.at" <moritz.lipp@...k.tugraz.at>,
Michael Schwarz <michael.schwarz@...k.tugraz.at>,
Richard Fellner <richard.fellner@...dent.tugraz.at>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"anders.fogh@...ta-adan.de" <anders.fogh@...ta-adan.de>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC, PATCH] x86_64: KAISER - do not map
kernel in user mode
Daniel,
Am 07.05.2017 um 23:45 schrieb Daniel Gruss:
>> Just did a quick test on my main KVM host, a 8 core Intel(R) Xeon(R)
>> CPU E3-1240 V2.
>> KVM guests are 4.10 w/o CONFIG_KAISER and kvmconfig without CONFIG_PARAVIRT.
>> Building a defconfig kernel within that guests is about 10% slower
>> when CONFIG_KAISER
>> is enabled.
>
> Thank you for testing it! :)
>
>> Is this expected?
>
> It sounds plausible. First, I would expect any form of virtualization to increase the overhead. Second, for the processor (Ivy Bridge), I would have expected even higher
> performance overheads. KAISER utilizes very recent performance improvements in Intel processors...
Ahh, *very* recent is the keyword then. ;)
I was a bit confused since in your paper the overhead is less than 1%.
What platforms did you test?
i.e. how does it perform on recent AMD systems?
Thanks,
//richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
