From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACE4AB363 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 20:16:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s78IJXBf015721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:19:33 -0400 Received: from x220.localdomain (ovpn-113-117.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.117]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id s78IJV8B015162; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:19:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 11:19:31 -0700 From: Chris Wright To: Vincent JARDIN Message-ID: <20140808181931.GK26743@x220.localdomain> References: <4099DE2E54AFAD489356C6C9161D533363BB3709@szxema505-mbx.china.huawei.com> <53E4802F.70904@6wind.com> <4099DE2E54AFAD489356C6C9161D533363BB4727@szxema505-mbx.china.huawei.com> <53E49715.3020504@6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53E49715.3020504@6wind.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.24 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Guofeng \(E\)" , "lixiao \(H\)" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Is VFIO driver's performance better than IGB_UIO? X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:16:59 -0000 * Vincent JARDIN (vincent.jardin@6wind.com) wrote: > > My cpu is "Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620 @ 2.40GHz" > > It is a Westmere if I am correct. So,use UIO. My experience is that the CPU isn't as an important part of the platform as the chipset. IOW, VFIO requires full IOMMU isolation, and the IOMMU cost depends on the chipset. Vincent, is that what you were implying by cpu, or do you see something else? thanks, -chris