From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751801AbZIVTGS (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:06:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751700AbZIVTGQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:06:16 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:60582 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751682AbZIVTGQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:06:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:04:19 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Avi Kivity , Arjan van de Ven , Alok Kataria , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , the arch/x86 maintainers , LKML , Chris Wright , Rusty Russell , "virtualization@lists.osdl.org" , Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Paravirtualization on VMware's Platform [VMI]. Message-ID: <20090922190419.GA24542@elte.hu> References: <20090919224430.GB9567@kroah.com> <1253419185.3253.21.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <20090920074247.GA5733@elte.hu> <20090920095239.456ad6f2@infradead.org> <4AB5EF25.9070502@redhat.com> <4AB64EFC.10707@goop.org> <20090922080913.GB1475@elte.hu> <4AB900CC.7090409@goop.org> <20090922180216.GA16789@elte.hu> <4AB91478.2050508@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AB91478.2050508@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 09/22/09 11:02, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > obviously they are workload dependent - that's why numbers were > > posted in this thread with various workloads. Do you concur with > > those conclusions that they are generally a speedup over paravirt? > > If not, which are the workloads where paravirt offers significant > > speedup over hardware acceleration? > > We're not in a position to do any useful measurements yet. Sorry for being dense, but what does that mean precisely? No available hardware? Xen doesnt run? Ingo