[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111207161001.GD23845@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 18:10:02 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: krkumar2@...ibm.com, jasowang@...hat.com, arnd@...db.de,
levinsasha928@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] macvtap: Fix macvtap_get_queue to use rxhash first
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 01:35:52AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 09:39:11 +0530
>
> > Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote on 11/25/2011 08:51:57 AM:
> >>
> >> My description is not clear again :(
> >> I mean the same vhost thead:
> >>
> >> vhost thread #0 transmits packets of flow A on processor M
> >> ...
> >> vhost thread #0 move to another process N and start to transmit packets
> >> of flow A
> >
> > Thanks for clarifying. Yes, binding vhosts to CPU's
> > makes the incoming packet go to the same vhost each
> > time. BTW, are you doing any binding and/or irqbalance
> > when you run your tests? I am not running either at
> > this time, but thought both might be useful.
>
> So are we going with this patch or are we saying that vhost binding
> is a requirement?
OK we didn't come to a conclusion so I would be inclined
to merge this patch as is for 3.2, and revisit later.
One question though: do these changes affect userspace
in any way? For example, will this commit us to
ensure that a single flow gets a unique hash even
for strange configurations that transmit the same flow
from multiple cpus?
--
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