On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:12:45AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> There are some potential performance benefits too:
> - When you have a device that cannot address the complete address range
> an IOMMU can remap its memory instead of bounce buffering. Remapping
> is likely cheaper than copying.
But those devices aren't likely to be found on modern systems.
> - The IOMMU can merge sg lists into a single virtual block. This could
> potentially speed up SG IO when the device is slow walking SG lists.
> [I long ago benchmarked 5% on some block benchmark with an old
> MPT Fusion; but it probably depends a lot on the HBA]
But most devices are SG-capable.
> And you get better driver debugging because unexpected memory
> accesses from the devices will cause an trapable event.
That and direct-access for KVM the big ones, IMHO, and definitely
justify merging.
> > Does it slow anything down?
>
> It adds more overhead to each IO so yes.
How much? we have numbers (to be presented at OLS later this week)
that show that on bare-metal an IOMMU can cost as much as 15%-30% more
CPU utilization for an IO intensive workload (netperf). It will be
interesting to see comparable numbers for VT-d.
Cheers,
Muli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
