netdev - Re: [kvm] Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:02:54 -0600
From:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...com>
To:	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Cc:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	agraf@...e.de, pmullaney@...ell.com, pmorreale@...ell.com,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [kvm] Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus

On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:18 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
> > Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>> I don't think we even need that to end this debate.  I'm convinced 
> >>> we have a bug somewhere.  Even disabling TX mitigation, I see a ping 
> >>> latency of around 300ns whereas it's only 50ns on the host.  This 
> >>> defies logic so I'm now looking to isolate why that is.
> >>
> >> I'm down to 90us.  Obviously, s/ns/us/g above.  The exec.c changes 
> >> were the big winner... I hate qemu sometimes.
> 
> Anyway, if we're able to send this many packets, I suspect we'll be able 
> to also handle much higher throughputs without TX mitigation so that's 
> what I'm going to look at now.

Anthony,

Any news on this?  I'm anxious to see virtio-net performance on par with
the virtual-bus results.  Thanks,

Alex

--
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