> -----Original Message----- > From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 5:14 PM > To: Zhang, Yang Z; Wu, Feng; Alex Williamson > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > 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
