[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100915052724.GA25481@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:27:24 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
Cc: "Xin, Xiaohui" <xiaohui.xin@...el.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...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 07:40:52PM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 09:50 +0800, Xin, Xiaohui wrote:
> > I think what David said is what we have thought before in mp device.
> > Since we are not sure the exact time the tx buffer was wrote though
> > DMA operation.
> > But the deadline is when the tx buffer was freed. So we only notify
> > the vhost stuff
> > about the write when tx buffer freed. But the deadline is maybe too
> > late for performance.
>
> Have you tried it? If so what's the performance penalty you have seen by
> notifying vhost when tx buffer freed?
>
> I am thinking to have a callback in skb destructor,
> vhost_add_used_and_signal gets updated when skb is actually freed, vhost
> vq & head need to be passed to the callback. This might requires vhost
> ring size is at least as big as the lower device driver.
>
> Thanks
> Shirley
For some of the issues, try following the discussion around
net: af_packet: don't call tpacket_destruct_skb() until the skb is sent
out.
Summary: it's difficult to do correctly generally. Limiting ourselves
to transmit on specific devices might make it possible.
--
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