linux-kernel - Re: [Intel IOMMU 00/10] Intel IOMMU support, take #2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070626160032.GF8274@rhun.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:00:32 -0400
From:	Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>
To:	"Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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 08:48:04AM -0700, Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote:

> 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.

Please try netperf and a bigger machine for a meaningful comparison :-)
I assume this is with e1000?

> Going forward we will do more benchmark tests and will share the
> results.

Looking forward to it.

Cheers,
Muli
-
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/