Re: [Xen-devel] x86 patch ping

2016-04-17 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> Andrew Cooper 04/15/16 7:12 PM >>> >On 08/04/16 13:10, Jan Beulich wrote: >> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-03/msg02167.html >> (with the 1st patch having gone in already) > >Apologies for the delay on this. I now have results in. > >The 64bit performance hit is within the

Re: [Xen-devel] x86 patch ping

2016-04-15 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 08/04/16 13:10, Jan Beulich wrote: > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-03/msg02167.html > (with the 1st patch having gone in already) Apologies for the delay on this. I now have results in. The 64bit performance hit is within the noise (as expected) but sadly, the performance

Re: [Xen-devel] x86 patch ping

2016-04-08 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 08.04.16 at 14:18, wrote: > The SMEP/SMAP series is still very concerning. I need to follow up on > the performance testing, but it currently looks like no real improvement > on the 40-70% performance hit for 32bit PV guests. Well, we didn't really expect much of a change for 32-bit guest

Re: [Xen-devel] x86 patch ping

2016-04-08 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 08/04/16 13:10, Jan Beulich wrote: > Andrew, > > could I please get acks or otherwise on > > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-03/msg01469.html > > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-03/msg02167.html > (with the 1st patch having gone in already) > > http://lists.xe

[Xen-devel] x86 patch ping

2016-04-08 Thread Jan Beulich
Andrew, could I please get acks or otherwise on http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-03/msg01469.html http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-03/msg02167.html (with the 1st patch having gone in already) http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-04/msg00040.html T