[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49D4B308.2030007@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:43:52 +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,
Mark McLoughlin <markmc@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus
Gregory Haskins wrote:
>> It's more of a "schedule and forget" which I think brings you the
>> win. The host disables notifications and schedules the actual tx work
>> (rx from the host's perspective). So now the guest and host continue
>> producing and consuming packets in parallel. So long as the guest is
>> faster (due to the host being throttled?), notifications continue to
>> be disabled.
>>
> Yep, when the "producer::consumer" ratio is > 1, we mitigate signaling.
> When its < 1, we signal roughly once per packet.
>
>
>> If you changed your rx_isr() to process the packets immediately
>> instead of scheduling, I think throughput would drop dramatically.
>>
> Right, that is the point. :) This is that "soft asic" thing I was
> talking about yesterday.
>
But all that has nothing to do with where the code lives, in the kernel
or userspace.
--
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