From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] vhost: TX used buffer guest signal accumulation Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:11:58 +0200 Message-ID: <20101029081158.GC22688@redhat.com> References: <1288216693.17571.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1288240804.14342.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20101028052021.GD5599@redhat.com> <1288294355.11251.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1288296835.11251.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1288299878.30131.2.camel@sridhar.beaverton.ibm.com> <1288302050.11251.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sridhar Samudrala , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Shirley Ma Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1288302050.11251.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 02:40:50PM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote: > On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 14:04 -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote: > > It would be some change in virtio-net driver that may have improved > > the > > latency of small messages which in turn would have reduced the > > bandwidth > > as TCP could not accumulate and send large packets. > > I will check out any latency improvement patch in virtio_net. If that's > the case, whether it is good to have some tunable parameter to benefit > both BW and latency workload? > > Shirley No, we need it to work well automatically somehow. -- MST