From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: Paravirtualization on VMware's Platform [VMI]. Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:16:24 -0700 Message-ID: <4AB91478.2050508@goop.org> References: <1253233028.19731.63.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <20090919224430.GB9567@kroah.com> <1253419185.3253.21.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <20090920074247.GA5733@elte.hu> <20090920095239.456ad6f2@infradead.org> <4AB5EF25.9070502@redhat.com> <4AB64EFC.10707@goop.org> <20090922080913.GB1475@elte.hu> <4AB900CC.7090409@goop.org> <20090922180216.GA16789@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090922180216.GA16789@elte.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Avi Kivity , Arjan van de Ven , Alok Kataria , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , the arch/x86 maintainers , LKML , Chris Wright , Rusty Russell , "virtualization@lists.osdl.org" , Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On 09/22/09 11:02, Ingo Molnar wrote: > obviously they are workload dependent - that's why numbers were posted > in this thread with various workloads. Do you concur with those > conclusions that they are generally a speedup over paravirt? If not, > which are the workloads where paravirt offers significant speedup over > hardware acceleration? > We're not in a position to do any useful measurements yet. J