lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/2] kvm: level irqfd and new eoifd
On 07/11/2012 10:57 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>
>> > We still have classic KVM device assignment to provide fast-path INTx.
>> > But if we want to replace it midterm, I think it's necessary for VFIO to
>> > be able to provide such a path as well.
>>
>> I would like VFIO to have no regressions vs. kvm device assignment,
>> except perhaps in uncommon corner cases. So I agree.
>
> I ran a few TCP_RR netperf tests forcing a 1Gb tg3 nic to use INTx.
> Without irqchip support vfio gets a bit more than 60% of KVM device
> assignment. That's a little bit of an unfair comparison since it's more
> than just the I/O path. With the proposed interfaces here, enabling
> irqchip, vfio is within 10% of KVM device assignment for INTx. For MSI,
> I can actually make vfio come out more than 30% better than KVM device
> assignment if I send the eventfd from the hard irq handler. Using a
> threaded handler as the code currently does, vfio is still behind KVM.
> It's hard to beat a direct call chain.

We can have a direct call chain with vfio too, using a custom eventfd
poll function, no? Assuming we set up a fast path for unicast msi.

> For more devices, one that seems common among the non-enterprise users
> are TV capture cards, like the old PVR-250/350 devices. These don't
> support MSI. Thanks,

That doesn't mean they require an interrupt rate that warrants a fast
path. But I guess that some combination of old guests or old hardware
will want it.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-12 12:21    [W:0.088 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site