[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OF7580E0BB.9A2AFB5C-ON65257841.003FF6FF-65257841.0040AEC3@in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:18:00 +0530
From: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: anthony@...emonkey.ws, arnd@...db.de, avi@...hat.com,
davem@...emloft.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [v3 RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote on 02/23/2011 09:25:34 PM:
> > Sure, will get a build/test on latest bits and send in 1-2 days.
> >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Also, my hope is that with appropriate queue mapping,
> > > we might be able to do away with heuristics to detect
> > > single stream load that TX only code needs.
> >
> > Yes, that whole stuff is removed, and the TX/RX path is
> > unchanged with this patch (thankfully :)
>
> Cool. I was wondering whether in that case, we can
> do without host kernel changes at all,
> and use a separate fd for each TX/RX pair.
> The advantage of that approach is that this way,
> the max fd limit naturally sets an upper bound
> on the amount of resources userspace can use up.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> In any case, pls don't let the above delay
> sending an RFC.
I will look into this also.
Please excuse the delay in sending the patch out faster - my
bits are a little old, so it is taking some time to move to
the latest kernel and get some initial TCP/UDP test results.
I should have it ready by tomorrow.
Thanks,
- KK
--
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