Re: vhost net: performance with ping benchmark

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 08:06:39AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> I think this is likely going to be needed regardless.  I also think  
>>> the tap compatibility suggestion would simplify the consumption of  
>>> this in userspace.
>>
>> What about veth pairs?
>
> Does veth support GSO and checksum offload?

AFAIK, no. But again, improving veth is a separate project :)

>>> I'd like some time to look at get_state/set_state ioctl()s along with 
>>> dirty tracking support.  It's a much better model for live migration  
>>> IMHO.
>>
>> My preference is ring proxying.  Not we'll need ring proxying (or at  
>> least event proxying) for non-MSI guests.
>
> I avoided suggested ring proxying because I didn't want to suggest that  
> merging should be contingent on it.

Happily, the proposed interface supports is.

> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori