From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Intel IOMMU scalability improvements Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 11:22:49 +0200 Message-ID: <20160405092249.GE17838@8bytes.org> References: <20151228161421.GA27829@cs.technion.ac.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Benjamin Serebrin Cc: Omer Peleg , iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Dan Tsafrir , Adam Morrison , David Woodhouse List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:00:34AM -0700, Benjamin Serebrin via iommu wrote: > There are nice.=A0 Thanks very much for doing this work! > = > We have some preliminary results, looking at scaling to high core counts.= =A0 We > tested the patches on a 2-socket high core count SNB-EP server with a Bro= adcomm > NIC.=A0 Our benchmark uses 200 threads of TCP_RR.=A0 We see similar perfo= rmance for > IOMMU disabled as we do for IOMMU enabled with this patchset, which is go= od > news.=A0 We're working on getting a lab setup with Haswell servers so we = can > further test the scalability of the code. > = > We owe the scaling results and of course actual code reviews. This sounds very promising. Could you guys rebase the patches to a recent upstream kernel and repost together with your performance results? I'd really like to see that merged. Joerg