From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: TODO list for qemu+KVM networking performance v2 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:54:28 +0300 Message-ID: <20090610155428.GI28601@redhat.com> References: <20090604164320.GB14592@redhat.com> <200906101309.14532.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <4A2F5217.9090401@redhat.com> <200906110009.34671.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20090610145358.GB28601@redhat.com> <4A2FCEA9.8010604@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Rusty Russell , dlaor@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Chris Wright , Mark McLoughlin , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Brian Stein , Herbert Xu , Dor Laor , Yaron Haviv , Shahar Klein , Anthony Liguori To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:53504 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756055AbZFJPz2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:55:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A2FCEA9.8010604@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 06:18:01PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> But I don't understand how aio will make implementing it easier - >> or are you merely saying that it will make it worthwhile? >> > > If you have aio, the the NIC and the guest proceed in parallel. If the > guest is faster (likely), then when it sends the next packet it will see > that interrupts are disabled and not notify again. Once aio complete we > can recheck the queue; if it's empty we reenable notifications. If > there's still stuff in it we submit it with notifications disabled. So you are saying that with aio we won't need this optimization at all? I guess it's late in the day, and my mind is fuzzy... -- MST