From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Shirley Ma <mashirle@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: vhost-net patches
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:55:26 -0700
Message-ID: <1256745326.6745.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20091023110438.GA20229@redhat.com>
	 <1256310168.4443.2.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1256310765.4443.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1256315020.4443.12.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20091026200513.GA26623@redhat.com>
	 <1256592889.10142.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20091027064302.GB26914@redhat.com>
	 <1256654819.4753.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20091027152753.GA4622@redhat.com>
	 <1256661378.6745.2.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20091027205816.GA15914@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Sridhar Samudrala <sri@us.ibm.com>, Shirley Ma <xma@us.ibm.com>,
	David Stevens <dlstevens@us.ibm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	sri@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mashirle@linux.vnet.ibm.com
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:58076 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754295AbZJ1Pz0 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:55:26 -0400
Received: from d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (d01relay07.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.147])
	by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n9SFlaxA022063
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:47:36 -0400
Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215])
	by d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n9SFtVeJ1183846
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:55:31 -0400
Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id n9SFtUAl007065
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:55:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20091027205816.GA15914@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 22:58 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> How large is large here? I usually allocate 1G.

I used to have 512, for this run I allocated 1G.

> > I do see performance improves to 3xxxMb/s, and occasionally
> > reaches 40xxMb/s.
> 
> This is same as userspace, isn't it?

A little bit better than userspace.

> > But "queue full" still exists, I can avoid the problem
> > by increasing send queue size from qemu.
> 
> And what performance do you get then?

5-10% better than userspace.