[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAN+hb0UqC+FFf0n+rfjAC660SBA7ZFbO4F+LKipUMRBWVbHJjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:13:55 -0800
From: Benjamin Serebrin <serebrin@...gle.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Venkatesh Srinivas <venkateshs@...gle.com>,
"Jon Olson (Google Drive)" <jonolson@...gle.com>,
Rick Jones <rick.jones2@....com>,
James Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] virtio: Fix affinity for #VCPUs != #queue pairs
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> The logic is simple really. With #VCPUs == #queues we can reasonably
> assume this box is mostly doing networking so we can set affinity
> the way we like. With VCPUs > queues clearly VM is doing more stuff
> so we need a userspace policy to take that into account,
> we don't know ourselves what is the right thing to do.
>
> Arguably for #VCPUs == #queues we are not always doing the right thing
> either but I see this as an argument to move more smarts
> into core kernel not for adding more dumb heuristics in the driver.
Thanks for all the feedback, Michael. We'll drop this patch and move
to user mode.
Thanks,
Ben
Powered by blists - more mailing lists