On 09.05.2013, at 14:36, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: tiejun.chen [mailto:tiejun.c...@windriver.com] >> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 2:40 PM >> To: Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 >> Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; ag...@suse.de; kvm- >> p...@vger.kernel.org; k...@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: [v1][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booehv: direct ISI exception to >> Guest >> >> On 05/09/2013 07:34 PM, Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008 wrote: >>>>>> VF stands for virtualization fault see MAS8[VF] and we may use it >> for >>>> virtualized >>>> >>>> Looks KVM PPC have no this mechanism currently since I don't find >> MAS8_VF >>>> is >>>> used in kernel, right? >>> >>> Yes but 'we may use it' in the feature, I have a functional POC with >> VF. >> >> Any IO performance to be improved with this POC? > > VF approach puts more stress on HW TLB so I did not advance with performance > measurements though it may worth to do it.
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? Thanks! Alex _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
