> -----Original Message----- > From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 5:14 PM > To: Zhang, Yang Z; Wu, Feng; Alex Williamson > Cc: gleb@xxxxxxxxxx; dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; joro@xxxxxxxxxx; > tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; mingo@xxxxxxxxxx; hpa@xxxxxxxxx; x86@xxxxxxxxxx; > kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] KVM: Update IRTE according to guest interrupt > configuration changes > > > > On 12/11/2014 04:42, Zhang, Yang Z wrote: > > Personally, I think this feature will be helpful to the legacy device > > assignment. Agree, vfio is the right solution for future feature > > enabling. But the old kvm without the good vfio supporting is still > > used largely today. The user really looking for this feature but they > > will not upgrade their kernel. It's easy for us to backport this > > feature to old kvm with the legacy device assignment, but it is > > impossible to backport the whole vfio. > > You can certainly backport these patches to distros that do not have > VFIO. But upstream we should work on VFIO first. VFIO has feature > parity with legacy device assignment, and adding a new feature that is > not in VFIO would be a bad idea. > > By the way, do you have benchmark results for it? We have not been able > to see any performance improvement for APICv on e.g. netperf. Do you mean benchmark results for APICv itself or VT-d Posted-Interrtups? Thanks, Feng > > Paolo ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����o�^n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
