diff for duplicates of <1368213757.19683.10@snotra> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 715890a..cdfe951 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -1,15 +1,15 @@ On 05/10/2013 12:57:33 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: -> Could you guys please collect performance data during the next weeks =20 -> on both guest-directed ISIs as well as VF MMIOs (preferably with =20 -> in-kernel MMIO), so that we can decide on the direction that's worth =20 +> Could you guys please collect performance data during the next weeks +> on both guest-directed ISIs as well as VF MMIOs (preferably with +> in-kernel MMIO), so that we can decide on the direction that's worth > going towards? -Collecting data on VF MMIO would require implementing it (or at least =20 -salvaging and fixing some old code), which is not a high priority at =20 -the moment. If we do implement VF in the future we could always undo =20 -the direct ISI change, but it would still be nice to know if there's =20 +Collecting data on VF MMIO would require implementing it (or at least +salvaging and fixing some old code), which is not a high priority at +the moment. If we do implement VF in the future we could always undo +the direct ISI change, but it would still be nice to know if there's any real benefit in the first place. FWIW, I doubt that the "more stress on HW TLB" will be significant. --Scott= +-Scott diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index e474043..ea1b654 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -12,19 +12,19 @@ "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On 05/10/2013 12:57:33 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:\n" - "> Could you guys please collect performance data during the next weeks =20\n" - "> on both guest-directed ISIs as well as VF MMIOs (preferably with =20\n" - "> in-kernel MMIO), so that we can decide on the direction that's worth =20\n" + "> Could you guys please collect performance data during the next weeks \n" + "> on both guest-directed ISIs as well as VF MMIOs (preferably with \n" + "> in-kernel MMIO), so that we can decide on the direction that's worth \n" "> going towards?\n" "\n" - "Collecting data on VF MMIO would require implementing it (or at least =20\n" - "salvaging and fixing some old code), which is not a high priority at =20\n" - "the moment. If we do implement VF in the future we could always undo =20\n" - "the direct ISI change, but it would still be nice to know if there's =20\n" + "Collecting data on VF MMIO would require implementing it (or at least \n" + "salvaging and fixing some old code), which is not a high priority at \n" + "the moment. If we do implement VF in the future we could always undo \n" + "the direct ISI change, but it would still be nice to know if there's \n" "any real benefit in the first place.\n" "\n" "FWIW, I doubt that the \"more stress on HW TLB\" will be significant.\n" "\n" - -Scott= + -Scott -c2bdd4031e76147a4b5e2329eaa7afeca473cd60a1fcf3c85c1d095bf589aeec +64386fb8cb41ddbd7ba6c608fc15dc79a8d99f1eab1362f1bac3163aec918de8
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.