netdev - Re: [v3 RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110223225925.GL7361@verge.net.au>
Date:	Thu, 24 Feb 2011 07:59:25 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
Cc:	anthony@...emonkey.ws, arnd@...db.de, avi@...hat.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	mst@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [v3 RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:52:09AM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au> wrote on 02/22/2011 01:17:09 PM:
> 
> Hi Simon,
> 
> 
> > I have a few questions about the results below:
> >
> > 1. Are the (%) comparisons between non-mq and mq virtio?
> 
> Yes - mainline kernel with transmit-only MQ patch.
> 
> > 2. Was UDP or TCP used?
> 
> TCP. I had done some initial testing on UDP, but don't have
> the results now as it is really old. But I will be running
> it again.
> 
> > 3. What was the transmit size (-m option to netperf)?
> 
> I didn't use the -m option, so it defaults to 16K. The
> script does:
> 
> netperf -t TCP_STREAM -c -C -l 60 -H $SERVER
> 
> > Also, I'm interested to know what the status of these patches is.
> > Are you planing a fresh series?
> 
> Yes. Michael Tsirkin had wanted to see how the MQ RX patch
> would look like, so I was in the process of getting the two
> working together. The patch is ready and is being tested.
> Should I send a RFC patch at this time?
> 
> The TX-only patch helped the guest TX path but didn't help
> host->guest much (as tested using TCP_MAERTS from the guest).
> But with the TX+RX patch, both directions are getting
> improvements. Remote testing is still to be done.

Hi Krishna,

thanks for clarifying the test results.
I'm looking forward to the forthcoming RFC patches.
--
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