Re: [v3 RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net

[Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>]

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:52:09AM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote on 02/22/2011 01:17:09 PM:
> 
> Hi Simon,
> 
> 
> > I have a few questions about the results below:
> >
> > 1. Are the (%) comparisons between non-mq and mq virtio?
> 
> Yes - mainline kernel with transmit-only MQ patch.
> 
> > 2. Was UDP or TCP used?
> 
> TCP. I had done some initial testing on UDP, but don't have
> the results now as it is really old. But I will be running
> it again.
> 
> > 3. What was the transmit size (-m option to netperf)?
> 
> I didn't use the -m option, so it defaults to 16K. The
> script does:
> 
> netperf -t TCP_STREAM -c -C -l 60 -H $SERVER
> 
> > Also, I'm interested to know what the status of these patches is.
> > Are you planing a fresh series?
> 
> Yes. Michael Tsirkin had wanted to see how the MQ RX patch
> would look like, so I was in the process of getting the two
> working together. The patch is ready and is being tested.
> Should I send a RFC patch at this time?
> 
> The TX-only patch helped the guest TX path but didn't help
> host->guest much (as tested using TCP_MAERTS from the guest).
> But with the TX+RX patch, both directions are getting
> improvements. Remote testing is still to be done.

Hi Krishna,

thanks for clarifying the test results.
I'm looking forward to the forthcoming RFC patches.