Hello, some might have noticed my numerous posts recently, mainly in freebsd-net@, but all around the same story – replacing ESXi. So I hope nobody minds if I ask for help again to alleviate some of my knowledge deficiencies about PCIePassThrough. As last resort for special VMs, I always used to have dedicated NICs via PCIePassThrough. But with bhyve (besides other undiscovered strange side effects) I don't understand the results utilizing bhyve-passthru.
Simple test: Copy iso image from NFSv4 mount via 1GbE (to null). Host, using if_em (hartwell): 4-8kirqs/s (8 @mtu 1500), system idle ~99-100% Passing this same hartwell devcie to the guest, running the identical FreeBSD version like the host, I see 2x8kirqs/s, MTU independent, and only 80%idle, while almost all cycles are spent in Sys (vmm). Running the same guest in if_bridge(4)-vtnet(4) or vale(4)-vtnet(4) deliver identical results: About 80% attainable throughput, only 80% idle cycles. So interrupts triggerd by PCI devices, which are controlled via bhyve-passthru, are as expensive as interrupts triggered by emulated devices? I thought I'd save these expensive VM_Exits by using the passthru path. Completely wrong, is it? I haven't ever done authoritative ESXi measures, but I remember that there was a significant saving using VMDirectPath. Big enough that I never felt the need for measuring. Is there any implementation difference? Some kind of intermediate interrupt moderation maybe? Thanks for any hints/links, -harry _______________________________________________ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
