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

[Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>]

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


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft 
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/