[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EDB624A.3030403@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:06:34 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
markmc@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio-ring: Use threshold for switching to indirect
descriptors
On 12/04/2011 02:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > How much better?
> >
> > I think that if indirects benefit networking, then we're doing something
> > wrong. What's going on? Does the ring get filled too early? If so we
> > should expand it.
>
> The ring is physically contigious.
> With 256 entries and 64 bytes each, that's already 16K.
A descriptor is just 16 bytes. There's also the used ring, but that's a
mistake if you have out of order completion. We should have used copying.
16kB worth of descriptors is 1024 entries. With 4kB buffers, that's 4MB
worth of data, or 4 ms at 10GbE line speed. With 1500 byte buffers it's
just 1.5 ms. In any case I think it's sufficient.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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