Re: [ANNOUNCE] kvm-guest-drivers-windows-2

Avi Kivity
2008-05-15T15:30:13Z

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> FWIW, virtio-net is much better with my patches applied.
>>
>> The can_receive patches?
>>
>> Again, I'm not opposed to them in principle, I just think that if
>> they help that this points at a virtio deficiency. Virtio should
>> never leave the rx queue empty. Consider the case where the virtio
>> queue isn't tied to a socket buffer, but directly to hardware.
>
> For RX performance:
>
>
> right now
> [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1016 MBytes 852 Mbits/sec
>
> revert tap hack
> [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 564 MBytes 473 Mbits/sec
>
> all patches applied
> [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.17 GBytes 1.01 Gbits/sec
>
> drop lots of packets
> [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.05 GBytes 905 Mbits/sec
>
>
> The last patch is not in my series but it basically makes the ring
> size 512 and drops packets when we run out of descriptors. That was
> to valid that we're not hiding a virtio deficiency. The reason I want
> to buffer packets is that it avoids having to deal with tuning. For
> vringfd/vmdq, we'll have to make sure to get the tuning right though.

Okay; I'll apply the patches. Hopefully we won't diverge too much from
upstream qemu.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function