Re: [PATCH 2/4] Revert virtio tap hack

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1175 bytes --]

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> While it has served us well, it is long overdue that we eliminate the
> virtio-net tap hack.  It turns out that zero-copy has very little impact on
> performance.  The tap hack was gaining such a significant performance boost
> not because of zero-copy, but because it avoided dropping packets on receive
> which is apparently a significant problem with the tap implementation in QEMU.
>   

FWIW, attached is a pretty straight forward zero-copy patch.  What's 
interesting is that I see no change in throughput using this patch.  The 
CPU is pegged at 100% during the iperf run.  Since we're still using 
small MTUs, this isn't surprising.  Copying a 1500 byte packet that we 
have to bring into the cache anyway doesn't seem significant.  I think 
zero-copy will be more important with GSO though.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Patches 3 and 4 in this series address the packet dropping issue and the net
> result is a 25% boost in RX performance even in the absence of zero-copy.
>
> Also worth mentioning, is that this makes merging virtio into upstream QEMU
> significantly easier.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
>   


[-- Attachment #2: net-tap-zero-copy.patch --]
[-- Type: application/mbox, Size: 5499 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 320 bytes --]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. 
Use priority code J8TL2D2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone

[-- Attachment #4: Type: text/plain, Size: 158 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel