From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to Guest Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 14:22:37 -0500 Message-ID: <1368213757.19683.10@snotra> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="Flowed"; DelSp="Yes" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , Wood Scott-B07421 , "kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org" , "tiejun.chen" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" To: Alexander Graf Return-path: In-Reply-To: (from agraf@suse.de on Fri May 10 12:57:33 2013) Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppe-linuxppc-embedded-2=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 05/10/2013 12:57:33 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > 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 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