[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1240250574.26773.30.camel@lappy>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:02:54 -0600
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...com>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Andi Kleen <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: [kvm] Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:18 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
> > Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>> I don't think we even need that to end this debate. I'm convinced
> >>> we have a bug somewhere. Even disabling TX mitigation, I see a ping
> >>> latency of around 300ns whereas it's only 50ns on the host. This
> >>> defies logic so I'm now looking to isolate why that is.
> >>
> >> I'm down to 90us. Obviously, s/ns/us/g above. The exec.c changes
> >> were the big winner... I hate qemu sometimes.
>
> Anyway, if we're able to send this many packets, I suspect we'll be able
> to also handle much higher throughputs without TX mitigation so that's
> what I'm going to look at now.
Anthony,
Any news on this? I'm anxious to see virtio-net performance on par with
the virtual-bus results. Thanks,
Alex
--
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