| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1240250574.26773.30.camel@lappy> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists