[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54632ECA.4070903@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:56:26 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: "Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.com>,
"Zhang, Yang Z" <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC: "gleb@...nel.org" <gleb@...nel.org>,
"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] KVM: Update IRTE according to guest interrupt configuration
changes
On 12/11/2014 10:19, Wu, Feng wrote:
>> You can certainly backport these patches to distros that do not have
>> VFIO. But upstream we should work on VFIO first. VFIO has feature
>> parity with legacy device assignment, and adding a new feature that is
>> not in VFIO would be a bad idea.
>>
>> By the way, do you have benchmark results for it? We have not been able
>> to see any performance improvement for APICv on e.g. netperf.
>
> Do you mean benchmark results for APICv itself or VT-d Posted-Interrtups?
Especially for VT-d posted interrupts---but it'd be great to know which
workloads see the biggest speedup from APICv.
Paolo
--
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