From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: AlacrityVM benchmark numbers updated Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:23:12 +0300 Message-ID: <4A958BA0.2000801@redhat.com> References: <4A948962.7090909@gmail.com> <4A950B75.5020409@redhat.com> <4A95822D.9060207@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: alacrityvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Gregory Haskins Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4A95822D.9060207@gmail.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 08/26/2009 09:42 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: > Actually, I have already look at this and it does indeed seem better to > use switch_mm+gupf() over gup() by quite a large margin. You could then > couple that with your DMA-engine idea to potentially gain even more > benefits (though probably not for networking since most NICs have their > own DMA engine anyway). > > For tx, we'll just go copyless once we plumb the destructors properly. But for rx on a shared interface it is impossible to avoid the copy. You can only choose if you want it done by the cpu or a local dma engine. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.