[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100915051241.GA25340@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:12:41 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
"Xin, Xiaohui" <xiaohui.xin@...el.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] macvtap: TX zero copy between guest and host
kernel
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:36:23PM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 21:01 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > I think that you should be able to simply combine
> > > > the two drivers together, add an ioctl to
> > > > enable/disable zero copy mode of operation.
> > >
> > > That could work. But what's the purpose to have two drivers if one
> > > driver can handle it?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Shirley
> >
> > This was just an idea: I thought it's a good way for people interested
> > in this zero copy thing to combine forces and avoid making
> > the same mistakes, but it's not a must of course.
>
> Ok, I will make a simple patch by reusing Xiaohui's some vhost code on
> handling vhost_add_used_and_signal() to see any performance changes.
>
> The interesting thing here when I run 32 instances netperf/netserver I
> didn't see any issue w/i this patch.
>
> Thanks
> Shirley
Yes, I agree this patch is useful for demo purposes:
simple, and shows what kind of performance gains
we can expect for TX.
--
MST
--
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