From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 19 23:26:04 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB33106566C; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:26:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=julian=2945f491c@elischer.org) Received: from smtp-outbound.ironport.com (smtp-outbound.ironport.com [63.251.108.112]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 604378FC08; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:26:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=julian=2945f491c@elischer.org) Received: from unknown (HELO julian-mac.elischer.org) ([10.251.60.79]) by smtp-outbound.ironport.com with ESMTP; 19 Feb 2009 15:26:04 -0800 Message-ID: <499DEA9D.70105@elischer.org> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:26:21 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FreeBSD virtualization mailing list , Marko Zec , "Bjoern A. Zeeb" References: <499DC0F7.10709@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <499DC0F7.10709@elischer.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: Vimage next step X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:26:04 -0000 Julian Elischer wrote: > I've been doing performance testing on the 'non-vimage' 'structified' > case VS the original 'globals' case and have not been able to see any > really significant differences (though I have seen very slight > differences in the distribution of results). > > SO I think we are in the position of moving forward to the next steps. > > I think that just means checking in the rest of the vimage tree > from what I have seen. > > Then we can play with it a bit and then proceed to the > jail/vimage merge stuff that Jamie (and bz) are working on. > > One thing I'd like to do is make the following changes: > > 1/ evaluate the ordering of the items in the vimage structures to see if > there are items that should be clustered for cache reasons. > > 2/ remove all sub structures from the vimage structures > and replace them with pointers. This is because puting them in > directly in the vimage structures will make our lives harder due to ABI > issues. If they are independently allocated (*) then we don't need to > worry about them changing in size. for example, the ipsec struct starts with: int _ipsec_debug; struct ipsecstat _ipsec4stat; struct secpolicy _ip4_def_policy; int _ip4_esp_trans_deflev; int _ip4_esp_net_deflev; This effectively fixes the size of the ipsecstat and secpolicy structures. I would like instead to have: int _ipsec_debug; struct ipsecstat *_ipsec4stat; struct secpolicy *_ip4_def_policy; int _ip4_esp_trans_deflev; int _ip4_esp_net_deflev; and have the initializer function allocate those separately. > > > (*) actually they could still be allocated as a blob but we would access > them as if they are separate. > > comments? > > Julian > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"