Re: [PATCH 0/7] Support for GB pages in KVM

From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Support for GB pages in KVM
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:03:28 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <49CF6390.1020009@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090328214900.GE31080@8bytes.org>

Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 06:40:08PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>   
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 03:31:52PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this patchset extends the KVM MMU implementation to support 1GB pages as
>>> supported by AMD family 16 processors. These patches enable support for
>>> 1 GB pages with Nested Paging. Support for these pages in the shadow
>>> paging code was also developed but does not run stable yet. The patch
>>> for shadow-paging support is not included in this series and will be
>>> sent out seperatly.
>>>       
>> Looks generally sane. I'm not sure its even worthwhile to support
>> GBpages with softmmu, because the chance of finding an area without
>> shadowed (write protected) pages is much smaller than with 2MB pages.
>>     
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> The idea behind GB pages in softmmu code was to provide GB pages to the
> guest even if hardware does not support it. This would work better with
> live migration (Only case where we wouldn't have gbpages then would be
> vmx with ept enabled).
>
>   
>> Have any numbers to share?
>>     
>
> No numbers I fully trust by now. I measured a 32% improvement in
> kernbench using nested pages backed with gb pages. I will do some more
> measurements and share some more solid numbers.
>
>   

Compared to 2M pages?  But we're already close to native here.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function