From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 31 00:53:15 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FA52887; Sat, 31 May 2014 00:53:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.digiware.nl (smtp.digiware.nl [31.223.170.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DB292194; Sat, 31 May 2014 00:53:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rack1.digiware.nl (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.digiware.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566A81534D1; Sat, 31 May 2014 02:53:13 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at digiware.nl Received: from smtp.digiware.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by rack1.digiware.nl (rack1.digiware.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KnxUu0waSNip; Sat, 31 May 2014 02:53:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.10.9] (vaio [192.168.10.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.digiware.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F104153434; Sat, 31 May 2014 02:53:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <538927FC.3000903@digiware.nl> Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 02:53:16 +0200 From: Willem Jan Withagen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Grehan Subject: Re: Bheve: Slow linux syscalls on AMD References: <5388B56D.1000501@digiware.nl> <20140530212900.6B74B6BF@hub.freebsd.org> <53891BC1.9050701@digiware.nl> <53891EAA.8040105@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <53891EAA.8040105@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 00:53:15 -0000 On 31-5-2014 2:13, Peter Grehan wrote: > Hi Willem, > >> So the question remains: >> Why is it taking so long on the AMD platform. > > The time difference looks a lot like a VM-exit roundtrip. My new AMD > box is arriving shortly so I'll have a look into it. Before running the getuid test: vm exits due to interrupt window opening 0 vm exits due to nmi window opening 0 vm exits due to nested page fault 311094 vm exits for instruction emulation 159415683 number of vm exits for unknown reason 0 number of vm exits handled in userspace 0 number of vm exits due to exceptions 0 total number of vm exits 353767137 vm exits due to external interrupt 177525597 Then calling getuid() 10^6 times vm exits due to interrupt window opening 0 vm exits due to nmi window opening 0 vm exits due to nested page fault 311094 vm exits for instruction emulation 159589889 number of vm exits for unknown reason 0 number of vm exits handled in userspace 0 number of vm exits due to exceptions 0 total number of vm exits 354157461 vm exits due to external interrupt 177730908 And that gives a difference of: 390324 Which is not the regular amount of vm exits counted in the equal idle time. So there seems to be some relation, but it is not 1:1... --WjW