From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53548) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4lMp-0008Ui-79 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 03:05:24 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4lMk-0006jP-GY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 03:05:23 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39549) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4lMk-0006iz-BI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 03:05:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:05:07 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20151204095532-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: <1448372127-28115-1-git-send-email-tianyu.lan@intel.com> <20151130095454-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <565D3DB1.5050902@intel.com> <20151201164327-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <565EFB59.1000005@intel.com> <20151202161042-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <566135DC.7070109@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <566135DC.7070109@intel.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH V2 00/10] Qemu: Add live migration support for SRIOV NIC List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Lan, Tianyu" Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, emil.s.tantilov@intel.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, aik@ozlabs.ru, donald.c.skidmore@intel.com, quintela@redhat.com, eddie.dong@intel.com, nrupal.jani@intel.com, agraf@suse.de, blauwirbel@gmail.com, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, kraxel@redhat.com, anthony@codemonkey.ws, amit.shah@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, mark.d.rustad@intel.com, lcapitulino@redhat.com, gerlitz.or@gmail.com On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 02:42:36PM +0800, Lan, Tianyu wrote: > > On 12/2/2015 10:31 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>We hope > >>>to find a better way to make SRIOV NIC work in these cases and this is > >>>worth to do since SRIOV NIC provides better network performance compared > >>>with PV NIC. > >If this is a performance optimization as the above implies, > >you need to include some numbers, and document how did > >you implement the switch and how did you measure the performance. > > > > OK. Some ideas of my patches come from paper "CompSC: Live Migration with > Pass-through Devices". > http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/vee_2012/papers/p109.pdf > > It compared performance data between the solution of switching PV and VF and > VF migration.(Chapter 7: Discussion) > I haven't read it, but I would like to note you can't rely on research papers. If you propose a patch to be merged you need to measure what is its actual effect on modern linux at the end of 2015. > >>>Current patches have some issues. I think we can find > >>>solution for them andimprove them step by step.