[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1176682966.14322.193.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:22:46 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] QEMU PIC indirection patch for in-kernel APIC work
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 06:32 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> I hadn't considered an always-blocking (or unbuffered) networking API.
> It's very counter to current APIs, but does make sense with things like
> syslets. Without syslets, I don't think it's very useful as you need
> some artificial threads to keep things humming along.
>
> (How would userspace specify it? O_DIRECT when opening the tap?)
TBH, I hadn't thought that far. Tap already has those IFF_NO_PI etc
flags, but it might make sense to just be the default. From userspace's
POV it's not a semantic change.
OK, just tested: I can get 230,000 packets (28 byte UDP) through the tun
device in a second (130,000 actually out the 100-base-T NIC, 100,000
dropped). If the tun driver's write() blocks until the skb is
destroyed, it's 4,000 packets.
So your intuition was right: skb_free latency on xmit (at least for this
e1000) is far too large for anything but an async solution.
Will ponder further.
Thanks!
Rusty.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists