From owner-freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Mon Jan 13 14:10:56 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 633F6224C76 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:10:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roger.pau@citrix.com) Received: from esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com [216.71.145.142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com", Issuer "HydrantID SSL ICA G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47xFqg4nHHz4X2J for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:10:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roger.pau@citrix.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1578924656; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=glHhmy283PZiYd9YLFSbHRhfbq9Lpste9beImf6xNjY=; b=ZpvrQ34a+TlKmedKPcw5IJmUDjWHjjYc7N5z95+UGwy3G0KqiKpjzS5u BT//8wjYsQnnPD70q2s+w9p9I7GBa6Td90ZLSAtMGYAXZy6X04lN3zOXO odRddd1g9DOgRYLzPhux6GZ+hpaVX7GSmXrfc3huJLtuIex6x+HTkbnTd Y=; Received-SPF: None (esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of roger.pau@citrix.com) identity=pra; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-sender="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: domain of roger.pau@citrix.com designates 162.221.158.21 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-sender="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"; x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:209.167.231.154 ip4:178.63.86.133 ip4:195.66.111.40/30 ip4:85.115.9.32/28 ip4:199.102.83.4 ip4:192.28.146.160 ip4:192.28.146.107 ip4:216.52.6.88 ip4:216.52.6.188 ip4:162.221.158.21 ip4:162.221.156.83 ip4:168.245.78.127 ~all" Received-SPF: None (esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail.citrix.com) identity=helo; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible IronPort-SDR: yxcybF1zPQEt3dQNIs6WFciDxhALdL4qbUmMheYTw5WcN23Bo6/hqEIH6yBviWfZeZlKpoB+rd 7e+5u3Sl6wCB7pJKPVr2q3oyjuqM9HLolHhAiE9P7W7Ulxa3EUP6W98fuxQWHASLMj6JJOUnx9 vKo3DMrU88rAmDL4WuPLeob8k5k3JvnStEArDtBbNa0Bj9FQDqLn3nMdeSJ08Uf1NJS5ahhy35 v9L3d5fxGJooF34fNwFHoKT70CRByPZrsOap9uo2os1aSB/6Q7qDdwEGekZdUfYRthvtTvH3b+ Nf4= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 10997619 X-Ironport-Server: esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,429,1571716800"; d="scan'208";a="10997619" Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:10:44 +0100 From: Roger Pau =?iso-8859-1?Q?Monn=E9?= To: Stefan Parvu CC: Subject: Re: Xen performance on FreeBSD vs Linux Message-ID: <20200113141044.GK11738@Air-de-Roger> References: <7E9802F1-172A-41A7-A110-C69A7D8D1192@kronometrix.org> <20200108154104.GE11738@Air-de-Roger> <74365939-48EF-4BA8-9DDF-6309C4D176FE@kronometrix.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <74365939-48EF-4BA8-9DDF-6309C4D176FE@kronometrix.org> X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPEX02CAS02.citrite.net (10.69.22.113) To AMSPEX02CL01.citrite.net (10.69.22.125) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47xFqg4nHHz4X2J X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=citrix.com header.s=securemail header.b=ZpvrQ34a; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=citrix.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of roger.pau@citrix.com designates 216.71.145.142 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=roger.pau@citrix.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.89 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[citrix.com:s=securemail]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_DKIM_ARC_DNSWL_MED(-0.50)[]; DWL_DNSWL_LOW(-1.00)[citrix.com.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.9.1]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[citrix.com:+]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[142.145.71.216.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.3.2]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[citrix.com,none]; RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:16417, ipnet:216.71.145.0/24, country:US]; IP_SCORE(-1.69)[ip: (-4.84), ipnet: 216.71.145.0/24(-2.19), asn: 16417(-1.38), country: US(-0.05)] X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:10:56 -0000 On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 09:07:32PM +0200, Stefan Parvu wrote: > > > > Also a FreeBSD dom0 can only work in PVH mode, which is faster for > > certain operations like page table modifications, but it's slower for > > others, like issuing hypercalls, when compared to a PV dom0. > > > > I don't have figures at hand now, but guest creation is likely slower > > on a FreeBSD PVH dom0 than on a Linux PV dom0, and that's because > > hypercalls are more expensive on PVH than on PV (has nothing to do > > whether Linux or FreeBSD is used). > > right. thanks a lot for pointers. A bit confusing is that I see mentioned > around that Xen of FreeBSD is experimental. Is this true ? PVH dom0 support in Xen is experimental, the FreeBSD PVH bits are mostly stable and I wouldn't expect many changes there except from bug fixes. The PVH guest ABI is also stable since quite some time ago. Thanks, Roger.