[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070626154803.GA3374@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:48:04 -0700
From: "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>
To: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...e.de,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, ashok.raj@...el.com,
davem@...emloft.net, clameter@....com
Subject: Re: [Intel IOMMU 00/10] Intel IOMMU support, take #2
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:11:25AM -0400, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 08:03:59AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> > >How much? we have numbers (to be presented at OLS later this week)
> > >that show that on bare-metal an IOMMU can cost as much as 15%-30% more
> > >CPU utilization for an IO intensive workload (netperf). It will be
> > >interesting to see comparable numbers for VT-d.
> >
> > for VT-d it is a LOT less. I'll let anil give you his data :)
>
> Looking forward to it. Note that this is on a large SMP machine with
> Gigabit ethernet, with netperf TCP stream. Comparing numbers for other
> benchmarks on other machines is ... less than useful, but the numbers
> themeselves are interesting.
Our initial benchmark results showed we had around 3% extra CPU
utilization overhead when compared to native(i.e without IOMMU).
Again, our benchmark was on small SMP machine and we used
iperf and a 1G ethernet cards.
Going forward we will do more benchmark tests and will share the
results.
-Anil
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists