[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1296159305.1640.50.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:15:05 -0800
From: Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Steve Dobbelstein <steved@...ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Network performance with small packets
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 22:05 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 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.
It's worth to try to figure out what's the best approach. I will make a
patch.
> >
> > 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.
Yes, that's what I think here. Some qdisc code has been changed
recently.
> >
> > By polling the vq a bit more aggressively, you meant vhost, right?
> >
> > Shirley
>
> Yes.
I had a similar patch before, I can modify it and test it out.
Shirley
--
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