[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <492044A7.3080107@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:04:55 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"randy.dunlap@...cle.com" <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
"grundler@...isc-linux.org" <grundler@...isc-linux.org>,
"Chiang, Alexander" <achiang@...com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
"rdreier@...co.com" <rdreier@...co.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org" <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/16 v6] PCI: Linux kernel SR-IOV support
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I don't think it's established that PV/VF will have less latency than
> using virtio-net. virtio-net requires a world switch to send a group
> of packets. The cost of this (if it stays in kernel) is only a few
> thousand cycles on the most modern processors.
>
> Using VT-d means that for every DMA fetch that misses in the IOTLB,
> you potentially have to do four memory fetches to main memory. There
> will be additional packet latency using VT-d compared to native, it's
> just not known how much at this time.
If the IOTLB has intermediate TLB entries like the processor, we're
talking just one or two fetches. That's a lot less than the cacheline
bouncing that virtio and kvm interrupt injection incur right now.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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