> Yeah.. Xen paravirtualized mmu is fast, and in some (many) cases beats > CPU hardware virtualized mmu. > > KVM has 'pvmmu' aswell, but it's not as good, so KVM is faster with CPU > hardware virtualization. But that's a problem of KVM only, they haven't > managed to optimize the pvmmu. And they're going to drop it altogether. > > KVM people tend to say 'paravirtualized mmu is slow', but they just mean > KVM implementation of it sucks :) > > -- Pasi I haven't tested or seen any benchmarks but I wonder how much the addition of a page table for virtualized guests will help. Not to mention newer features like a virtualized task priority register and ASID could continue to require less paravirt code in the guest. I get my two new 5500 series servers in a few weeks so I'm pretty excited to see some of the second gen hardware virtualization assist features in action.