Dor Laor wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 09:32 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> Hi Dor,
>>
>> How are you measuring performance? The numbers I've gotten with netperf
>> before and after your patch are:
>>
>> tx - 647.27mbit
>> rx - 89.22
>>
>> tx - 27.82
>> rx - 79.93
>>
>>
>
> I've been
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 09:32 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Hi Dor,
>
> How are you measuring performance? The numbers I've gotten with netperf
> before and after your patch are:
>
> tx - 647.27mbit
> rx - 89.22
>
> tx - 27.82
> rx - 79.93
>
I've been testing with iperf (patched with Ingo's
Dor Laor wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 09:32 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> Hi Dor,
>>
>> How are you measuring performance? The numbers I've gotten with netperf
>> before and after your patch are:
>>
>> tx - 647.27mbit
>> rx - 89.22
>>
>> tx - 27.82
>> rx - 79.93
>>
>>
>
> I've been
Hi Dor,
How are you measuring performance? The numbers I've gotten with netperf
before and after your patch are:
tx - 647.27mbit
rx - 89.22
tx - 27.82
rx - 79.93
So this patch is pretty much killing performance for netperf.
Dor Laor wrote:
> There was a problem with the location of the notif
>From f582caf612b446e42f1e80d5ef12c5b7322efd03 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dor Laor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:09:48 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] virtio_net tx performance fix
There was a problem with the location of the notify call in
add_buff function:
When VRING_USED_F_NO_NOTIFY
