Re: [Intel IOMMU 00/10] Intel IOMMU support, take #2

Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:

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.

for VT-d it is a LOT less. I'll let anil give you his data :)
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [Intel IOMMU 00/10] Intel IOMMU support, take #2
    • From: Muli Ben-Yehuda <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [Intel IOMMU 00/10] Intel IOMMU support, take #2
    • From: "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Intel IOMMU 00/10] Intel IOMMU support, take #2
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Intel IOMMU 00/10] Intel IOMMU support, take #2
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Intel IOMMU 00/10] Intel IOMMU support, take #2
    • From: Muli Ben-Yehuda <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] trim memory not covered by WB MTRRs
• Previous by thread: Re: [Intel IOMMU 00/10] Intel IOMMU support, take #2
• Next by thread: Re: [Intel IOMMU 00/10] Intel IOMMU support, take #2
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]