lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:31:39 +0530 From: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com> To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> Cc: anthony@...emonkey.ws, arnd@...db.de, avi@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au Subject: Re: [v3 RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 02:38:53PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote: > > Results for UDP BW tests (unidirectional, sum across > > 3 iterations, each iteration of 45 seconds, default > > netperf, vhosts bound to cpus 0-3; no other tuning): > > Is binding vhost threads to CPUs really required? > What happens if we let the scheduler do its job? Nothing drastic, I remember BW% and SD% both improved a bit as a result of binding. I started binding vhost thread after Avi suggested it in response to my v1 patch (he suggested some more that I haven't done), and have been doing only this tuning ever since. This is part of his mail for the tuning: > vhost: > thread #0: CPU0 > thread #1: CPU1 > thread #2: CPU2 > thread #3: CPU3 I simply bound each thread to CPU0-3 instead. Thanks, - KK -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists