From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: PCI passthrough with VT-d - native performance Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:36:29 +0300 Message-ID: <487E076D.4050306@qumranet.com> References: <1216214225-18030-1-git-send-email-benami@il.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: amit.shah@qumranet.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, muli@il.ibm.com, weidong.han@intel.com, anthony@codemonkey.ws To: Ben-Ami Yassour Return-path: Received: from il.qumranet.com ([212.179.150.194]:16472 "EHLO il.qumranet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755390AbYGPOgb (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:36:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1216214225-18030-1-git-send-email-benami@il.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Ben-Ami Yassour wrote: > In last few tests that we made with PCI-passthrough and VT-d using > iperf, we were able to get the same throughput as on native OS with a 1G > NIC Excellent! > (with higher CPU utilization). > How much higher? > The following patches are the PCI-passthrough patches that Amit sent > (re-based on the last kvm tree), followed by a few improvements and the > VT-d extension. > I am also sending the userspace patches: the patch that Amit sent for > PCI passthrough and the direct-mmio extension for userspace (note that > without the direct mmio extension we get less then half the throughput). > Is mmio passthrough the reason for the performance improvement? If not, what was the problem? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function