From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: performance of virtual functions compared to virtio Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:20:14 +0300 Message-ID: <4DB6803E.5000603@redhat.com> References: <4DAF8EF0.8010203@gmail.com> <1303353349.3110.181.camel@x201> <4DAFE5BE.1070506@redhat.com> <4DB5B35B.5070703@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Williamson , KVM mailing list To: David Ahern Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62571 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750714Ab1DZIUT (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 04:20:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4DB5B35B.5070703@gmail.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/25/2011 08:46 PM, David Ahern wrote: > > > > Note I think in both cases we can make significant improvements: > > - for VFs, steer device interrupts to the cpus which run the vcpus that > > will receive the interrupts eventually (ISTR some work about this, but > > not sure) > > I don't understand your point here. I thought interrupts for the VF were > only delivered to the guest, not the host. > Interrupts are delivered to the host, which the forwards them to the guest. Virtualization hardware on x86 does not allow direct-to-guest interrupt delivery. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function