Hi Stephen,
Benjamin forwarded me your email stating:
> I have been playing with userspace-rcu which has a number of neat
> lockless routines for queuing and hashing. But there aren't kernel versions
> and several of them may require cmpxchg to work.
Just FYI, I made sure a few years ago that cm
I have been playing with userspace-rcu which has a number of neat
lockless routines for queuing and hashing. But there aren't kernel versions
and several of them may require cmpxchg to work.
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foun
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:23:17 +0200, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:34:42AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:05:07 +0200, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 02:25:17PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 20
On 11/16/2011 05:09 PM, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> jason wang wrote on 11/16/2011 11:40:45 AM:
>
> Hi Jason,
>
>> Have any thought in mind to solve the issue of flow handling?
> So far nothing concrete.
>
>> Maybe some performance numbers first is better, it would let us know
>> where we are. During
jason wang wrote on 11/16/2011 11:40:45 AM:
Hi Jason,
> Have any thought in mind to solve the issue of flow handling?
So far nothing concrete.
> Maybe some performance numbers first is better, it would let us know
> where we are. During the test of my patchset, I find big regression of
> small
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:34:42AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:05:07 +0200, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 02:25:17PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Asias He wrote:
> > > > Why both the bandwidth and latency p
On 11/15/2011 12:44 PM, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> Sasha Levin wrote on 11/14/2011 03:45:40 PM:
>
>>> Why both the bandwidth and latency performance are dropping so
>>> dramatically with multiple VQ?
>> It looks like theres no hash sync between host and guest, which makes
>> the RX VQ change for ever
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:05:07 +0200, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 02:25:17PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Asias He wrote:
> > > Why both the bandwidth and latency performance are dropping so
> > > dramatically
> > > with multiple VQ?
>
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 10:14 +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> Sasha Levin wrote on 11/14/2011 03:45:40 PM:
>
> > > Why both the bandwidth and latency performance are dropping so
> > > dramatically with multiple VQ?
> >
> > It looks like theres no hash sync between host and guest, which makes
> > the
Sasha Levin wrote on 11/14/2011 03:45:40 PM:
> > Why both the bandwidth and latency performance are dropping so
> > dramatically with multiple VQ?
>
> It looks like theres no hash sync between host and guest, which makes
> the RX VQ change for every packet. This is my guess.
Yes, I confirmed thi
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Asias He wrote:
> Why both the bandwidth and latency performance are dropping so dramatically
> with multiple VQ?
What's the expected benefit from multiple VQs i.e. why are doing the
patches Sasha?
___
Virtualization mai
Hi, Shsha
On 11/13/2011 11:00 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 12:24 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:12:01AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
This is a patch based on Krishna Kumar's patch series which implements
multiple VQ support for virtio-net.
The patch w
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 02:25:17PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Asias He wrote:
> > Why both the bandwidth and latency performance are dropping so dramatically
> > with multiple VQ?
>
> What's the expected benefit from multiple VQs
Heh, the original patchset didn
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 10:04 +0800, Asias He wrote:
> Hi, Shsha
>
> On 11/13/2011 11:00 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 12:24 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:12:01AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >>> This is a patch based on Krishna Kumar's patch seri
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 17:00 +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 12:24 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:12:01AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > This is a patch based on Krishna Kumar's patch series which implements
> > > multiple VQ support for virtio-net
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 12:24 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:12:01AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > This is a patch based on Krishna Kumar's patch series which implements
> > multiple VQ support for virtio-net.
> >
> > The patch was tested with ver3 of the patch.
> >
>
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:12:01AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> This is a patch based on Krishna Kumar's patch series which implements
> multiple VQ support for virtio-net.
>
> The patch was tested with ver3 of the patch.
>
> Cc: Krishna Kumar
> Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Cc: Rusty Russell
> Cc:
This is a patch based on Krishna Kumar's patch series which implements
multiple VQ support for virtio-net.
The patch was tested with ver3 of the patch.
Cc: Krishna Kumar
Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin
Cc: Rusty Russell
Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Cc: net...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off
18 matches
Mail list logo
