From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Jt9co-0006c4-6l
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 May 2008 18:57:38 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Jt9cm-0006bE-IU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 May 2008 18:57:37 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49168 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jt9cm-0006b5-An
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 May 2008 18:57:36 -0400
Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.182])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Jt9cm-0000fm-0O
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 May 2008 18:57:36 -0400
Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u52so1678708pyb.10
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 05 May 2008 15:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <481F90D4.6090507@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 17:57:24 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [4341] qemu: generate signals on tap I/O
References: <E1Jt8Cq-0007Qs-U7@cvs.savannah.gnu.org>	<481F84F3.6060505@flac.kalibalik.dk>
	<481F86F3.4080007@aurel32.net> <481F8D57.40500@flac.kalibalik.dk>
	<481F8DE5.9040905@codemonkey.ws> <481F8F0B.8040004@aurel32.net>
	<481F8F74.9010507@aurel32.net>
In-Reply-To: <481F8F74.9010507@aurel32.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>> You're seeing improvement with normal QEMU?  Can you please post a
>>> description of what you're seeing improve with SIGIO.  SIGIO should
>>> really only slow things down.
>>>       
>> I haven't tried Anders' patch, but the patch I accidentally committed
>> improved the network speed (tap mode) by a huge factor (I haven't the
>> exact factor in mind anymore). I can now easily reach 170 MBps with an
>>     
>                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^
>                                                   oops that is 170 Mbps
>   

If you explicitly call host_alarm_handler in tap_send(), do you see the 
same improvement?  Perhaps your host timer is just very slow?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>> e1000 card on the MIPS Malta target.
>>
>> That's why I use that patch in my local tree.
>>
>>     
>
>
>