[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 07:39:45 -0800
From: Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
mashirle@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org, Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
Steve Dobbelstein <steved@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Network performance with small packets
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 12:48 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Yes, I think doing this in the host is much simpler,
> just send an interrupt after there's a decent amount
> of space in the queue.
>
> Having said that the simple heuristic that I coded
> might be a bit too simple.
>>From the debugging out what I have seen so far (a single small message
TCP_STEAM test), I think the right approach is to patch both guest and
vhost. The problem I have found is a regression for single small
message TCP_STEAM test. Old kernel works well for TCP_STREAM, only new
kernel has problem.
For Steven's problem, it's multiple stream TCP_RR issues, the old guest
doesn't perform well, so does new guest kernel. We tested reducing vhost
signaling patch before, it didn't help the performance at all.
Thanks
Shirley
--
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