[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111116072317.GG5433@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:23:17 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Asias He <asias.hejun@...il.com>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, gorcunov@...il.com,
Krishna Kumar <krkumar2@...ibm.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] kvm tools: Implement multiple VQ for virtio-net
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:34:42AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:05:07 +0200, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 02:25:17PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Asias He <asias.hejun@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > Why both the bandwidth and latency performance are dropping so dramatically
> > > > with multiple VQ?
> > >
> > > What's the expected benefit from multiple VQs
> >
> > Heh, the original patchset didn't mention this :) It really should.
> > They are supposed to speed up networking for high smp guests.
>
> If we have one queue per guest CPU, does this allow us to run lockless?
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
LLTX? It's supposed to be deprecated, isn't it?
--
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