From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [v2 RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 19:50:14 +0200
Message-ID: <201010061950.14351.arnd@arndb.de>
References: <20100917100307.21276.79185.sendpatchset@krkumar2.in.ibm.com> <201010061419.00257.arnd@arndb.de> <OFB5315194.76E80A8A-ON652577B4.005DBA77-652577B4.005E77C6@in.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: anthony@codemonkey.ws, avi@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net,
	Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	rusty@rustcorp.com.au
To: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@in.ibm.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:62755 "EHLO
	moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1759113Ab0JFRum (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:50:42 -0400
In-Reply-To: <OFB5315194.76E80A8A-ON652577B4.005DBA77-652577B4.005E77C6@in.ibm.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wednesday 06 October 2010 19:14:42 Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote on 10/06/2010 05:49:00 PM:
> 
> > > I don't see any reasons mentioned above.  However, for higher
> > > number of netperf sessions, I see a big increase in retransmissions:
> > > _______________________________________
> > > #netperf      ORG           NEW
> > >             BW (#retr)    BW (#retr)
> > > _______________________________________
> > > 1          70244 (0)     64102 (0)
> > > 4          21421 (0)     36570 (416)
> > > 8          21746 (0)     38604 (148)
> > > 16         21783 (0)     40632 (464)
> > > 32         22677 (0)     37163 (1053)
> > > 64         23648 (4)     36449 (2197)
> > > 128        23251 (2)     31676 (3185)
> > > _______________________________________
> >
> >
> > This smells like it could be related to a problem that Ben Greear found
> > recently (see "macvlan:  Enable qdisc backoff logic"). When the hardware
> > is busy, used to just drop the packet. With Ben's patch, we return
> -EAGAIN
> > to qemu (or vhost-net) to trigger a resend.
> >
> > I suppose what we really should do is feed that condition back to the
> > guest network stack and implement the backoff in there.
> 
> Thanks for the pointer. I will take a look at this as I hadn't seen
> this patch earlier. Is there any way to figure out if this is the
> issue?

I think a good indication would be if this changes with/without the
patch, and if you see -EAGAIN in qemu with the patch applied.

	Arnd