[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110127200548.GE5228@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:05:48 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
Cc: Steve Dobbelstein <steved@...ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Network performance with small packets
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:45:47AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 21:31 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Well slowing down the guest does not sound hard - for example we can
> > request guest notifications, or send extra interrupts :)
> > A slightly more sophisticated thing to try is to
> > poll the vq a bit more aggressively.
> > For example if we handled some requests and now tx vq is empty,
> > reschedule and yeild. Worth a try?
>
> I used dropping packets in high level to slow down TX.
> I am still
> thinking what's the right the approach here.
Interesting. Could this is be a variant of the now famuous bufferbloat then?
I guess we could drop some packets if we see we are not keeping up. For
example if we see that the ring is > X% full, we could quickly complete
Y% without transmitting packets on. Or maybe we should drop some bytes
not packets.
>
> Requesting guest notification and extra interrupts is what we want to
> avoid to reduce VM exits for saving CPUs. I don't think it's good.
Yes but how do you explain regression?
One simple theory is that guest net stack became faster
and so the host can't keep up.
>
> By polling the vq a bit more aggressively, you meant vhost, right?
>
> Shirley
Yes.
--
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