From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756105Ab1IQTQ3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:16:29 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49493 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753493Ab1IQTQ1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:16:27 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:17:09 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Jason Wang Cc: krkumar2@in.ibm.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, davem@davemloft.net, kvm@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl, joe@perches.com, shemminger@vyatta.com Subject: Re: [net-next RFC V2 PATCH 0/5] Multiqueue support in tun/tap Message-ID: <20110917191709.GA6127@redhat.com> References: <20110917055639.32666.89940.stgit@dhcp-91-7.nay.redhat.com.englab.nay.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110917055639.32666.89940.stgit@dhcp-91-7.nay.redhat.com.englab.nay.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 02:02:04PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > A wiki-page was created to narrate the detail design of all parts > involved in the multi queue implementation: > http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Multiqueue and some basic tests result > could be seen in this page > http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Multiqueue-performance-Sep-13. I would > post the detail numbers in attachment as the reply of this thread. Does it make sense to test both with and without RPS in guest? -- MST From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [net-next RFC V2 PATCH 0/5] Multiqueue support in tun/tap Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:17:09 +0300 Message-ID: <20110917191709.GA6127@redhat.com> References: <20110917055639.32666.89940.stgit@dhcp-91-7.nay.redhat.com.englab.nay.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: krkumar2@in.ibm.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, joe@perches.com, shemminger@vyatta.com, mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl, davem@davemloft.net To: Jason Wang Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110917055639.32666.89940.stgit@dhcp-91-7.nay.redhat.com.englab.nay.redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 02:02:04PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > A wiki-page was created to narrate the detail design of all parts > involved in the multi queue implementation: > http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Multiqueue and some basic tests result > could be seen in this page > http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Multiqueue-performance-Sep-13. I would > post the detail numbers in attachment as the reply of this thread. Does it make sense to test both with and without RPS in guest? -- MST From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49394) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R50NB-0000sN-Gy for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:16:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R50NA-0004Xu-5g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:16:21 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:16983) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R50N9-0004WA-JK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:16:20 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:17:09 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20110917191709.GA6127@redhat.com> References: <20110917055639.32666.89940.stgit@dhcp-91-7.nay.redhat.com.englab.nay.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110917055639.32666.89940.stgit@dhcp-91-7.nay.redhat.com.englab.nay.redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [net-next RFC V2 PATCH 0/5] Multiqueue support in tun/tap List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jason Wang Cc: krkumar2@in.ibm.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, joe@perches.com, shemminger@vyatta.com, mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl, davem@davemloft.net On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 02:02:04PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > A wiki-page was created to narrate the detail design of all parts > involved in the multi queue implementation: > http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Multiqueue and some basic tests result > could be seen in this page > http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Multiqueue-performance-Sep-13. I would > post the detail numbers in attachment as the reply of this thread. Does it make sense to test both with and without RPS in guest? -- MST