[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110201214211.GB31105@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 23:42:11 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
Cc: Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
Steve Dobbelstein <steved@...ibm.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
mashirle@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Network performance with small packets
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 01:32:35PM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 23:24 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > My theory is that the issue is not signalling.
> > Rather, our queue fills up, then host handles
> > one packet and sends an interrupt, and we
> > immediately wake the queue. So the vq
> > once it gets full, stays full.
>
> >From the printk debugging output, it might not be exactly the case. The
> ring gets full, run a bit, then gets full, then run a bit, then full...
Yes, but does it get even half empty in between?
> > If you try my patch with bufs threshold set to e.g.
> > half the vq, what we will do is send interrupt after we have processed
> > half the vq. So host has half the vq to go, and guest has half the vq
> > to fill.
> >
> > See?
>
> I am cleaning up my set up to run your patch ...
>
> 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