[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: [PATCH 05/13] KVM: Update IRTE according to guest interrupt configuration changes
Wu, Feng wrote on 2014-11-13:
> wrote on 2014-11-12:
>> 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.
> We have some draft performance data internally, please see the
> attached. For VT-d PI, I think we can get the biggest performance gain
> if the VCPU is running in non-root mode for most of the time (not in
> HLT state), since external interrupt from assigned devices will be delivered by guest directly in this case.
> That means we can run some cpu intensive workload in the guests.

Have you check that the CPU side posted interrupt is taking effect in w/o VT-D PI case? Per my understanding, the performance gap should be so large if you use CPU side posted interrupt. This data more like the VT-d PI vs non PI(both VT-d and CPU).

> Thanks,
> Feng
>> Paolo
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the
>> body of a message to More majordomo info at

Best regards,

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-13 03:01    [W:0.044 / U:16.936 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site