[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180626170813.4db094a1.cohuck@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:08:13 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To: Siwei Liu <loseweigh@...il.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
"Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, aaron.f.brown@...el.com,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
Venu Busireddy <venu.busireddy@...cle.com>,
vijay.balakrishna@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu: Introduce
VIRTIO_NET_F_STANDBY feature bit to virtio_net
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:05:04 -0700
Siwei Liu <loseweigh@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:33 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > I suspect the diveregence will be lost on most users though
> > simply because they don't even care about vfio. They just
> > want things to go fast.
>
> Like Jason said, VF isn't faster than virtio-net in all cases. It
> depends on the workload and performance metrics: throughput, latency,
> or packet per second.
So, will it be guest/admin-controllable then where the traffic flows
through? Just because we do have a vf available after negotiation of
the feature bit, it does not necessarily mean we want to use it? Do we
(the guest) even want to make it visible in that case?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists