Avi Kivity wrote: > Anthony Liguori wrote: >> FWIW, virtio-net is much better with my patches applied. > > The can_receive patches? > > Again, I'm not opposed to them in principle, I just think that if they > help that this points at a virtio deficiency. Virtio should never > leave the rx queue empty. Consider the case where the virtio queue > isn't tied to a socket buffer, but directly to hardware.
For RX performance: right now [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1016 MBytes 852 Mbits/sec revert tap hack [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 564 MBytes 473 Mbits/sec all patches applied [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.17 GBytes 1.01 Gbits/sec drop lots of packets [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.05 GBytes 905 Mbits/sec The last patch is not in my series but it basically makes the ring size 512 and drops packets when we run out of descriptors. That was to valid that we're not hiding a virtio deficiency. The reason I want to buffer packets is that it avoids having to deal with tuning. For vringfd/vmdq, we'll have to make sure to get the tuning right though. Regards, Anthony Liguori ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
