[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49D4A5FB.1020601@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:48:11 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
CC: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, anthony@...emonkey.ws,
andi@...stfloor.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, agraf@...e.de,
pmullaney@...ell.com, pmorreale@...ell.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus
Gregory Haskins wrote:
>> There is no choice. Exiting from the guest to the kernel to userspace
>> is prohibitively expensive, you can't do that on every packet.
>>
>>
>
> Now you are making my point ;) This is part of the cost of your
> signaling path, and it directly adds to your latency time.
It adds a microsecond. The kvm overhead of putting things in userspace
is low enough, I don't know why people keep mentioning it. The problem
is the kernel/user networking interfaces.
> You can't
> buffer packets here if the guest is only going to send one and wait for
> a response and expect that to perform well. And this is precisely what
> drove me to look at avoiding going back to userspace in the first place.
>
We're not buffering any packets. What we lack is a way to tell the
guest that we're done processing all packets in the ring (IOW, re-enable
notifications).
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists