[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110201215603.GA31348@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 23:56:03 +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 01:53:05PM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 23:42 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Sometimes, most of them not half of empty in between. But printk slow
> down the traffics, so it's not accurate. I think your patch will improve
> the performance if it signals guest when half of the ring size is
> empty.
>
> But you manage signal by using TX bytes,
There are flags for bytes, buffers and packets.
Try playing with any one of them :)
Just be sure to use v2.
>I would like to change it to
> half of the ring size instead for signaling. Is that OK?
>
> Shirley
>
>
Sure that is why I made it a parameter so you can experiment.
--
MST
--
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