From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (unknown [64.7.137.165]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 779AAB3D7 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 18:23:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from WTL-EXCHP-1.sandvine.com ([fe80::ac6b:cc1e:f2ff:93aa]) by WTL-EXCHP-3.sandvine.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:27:14 -0400 From: "Michael Marchetti" To: "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: overcommitting CPUs Thread-Index: Ac/BSK4Ie9dEDL+WSrSuFei6WRfr+Q== Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:27:14 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.200.184] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: [dpdk-dev] overcommitting CPUs 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: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:23:15 -0000 Hi, has there been any consideration to introduce a non-spinning network dr= iver (interrupt based), for the purpose of overcommitting CPUs in a virtual= ized environment? This would obviously have reduced high-end performance b= ut would allow for increased guest density (sharing of physical CPUs) on a = host. I am interested in adding support for this kind of operation, is there any = interest in the community? Thanks, Mike.