[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49D5ED11.2000800@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:03:45 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
CC: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, ghaskins@...ell.com,
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
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Avi Kivity 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.
>>
>
> I didn't look at virtio-net very closely yet. I wonder why the
> notification is that a big issue though. It is easy to keep the number
> of notifications low without increasing latency:
>
> Check shared ring status when stuffing a request. If there are requests
> not (yet) consumed by the other end there is no need to send a
> notification. That scheme can even span multiple rings (nics with rx
> and tx for example).
>
If the host is able to consume a request immediately, and the guest is
not able to batch requests, this breaks down. And that is the current
situation.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
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