[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091223183129.GB415@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:31:29 -0800
From: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] AlacrityVM guest drivers for 2.6.33
* Anthony Liguori (anthony@...emonkey.ws) wrote:
> The "poor" packet latency of virtio-net is a result of the fact that we
> do software timer based TX mitigation. We do this such that we can
> decrease the number of exits per-packet and increase throughput. We set
> a timer for 250ms and per-packet latency will be at least that much.
Actually that's 150us ;-) It's the AlacrityVM numbers that show 250us
(note micro, not milli) for latency. That makes sense, shave off 150us
for the timer and you're left w/ 100us, which is not substantially
slower than what we see (for that bare metal latency we see ~60us)
when we switched tx mitigation schemes from timer based to thread
scheduling. Quite similar to the 56.8us that vbus/venet shows.
thanks,
-chris
--
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