From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56756) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TZJfu-0003C9-Nv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 06:01:33 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TZJfr-0005iX-KW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 06:01:30 -0500 Received: from mailpro.odiso.net ([89.248.209.98]:60417) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TZJfr-0005iN-Ed for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 06:01:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:00:53 +0100 (CET) From: Alexandre DERUMIER Message-ID: <76a2d77e-d5c5-4543-b852-f211497155f2@mailpro> In-Reply-To: <24E144B8C0207547AD09C467A8259F75578294D9@lisa.maurer-it.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] slow virtio network with vhost=on and multiple cores List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Dietmar Maurer Cc: Peter Lieven , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Jan Kiszka , Peter Lieven >>While trying to reproduce the bug, we just detected that it depends on th= e hardware (mainboard) you run on. >> >>Sigh :-/ Hi, I can reproduce the bug on all my dell servers,differents generation (R710 = (intel),R815 (amd), 2950 (intel). They all use broadcom bnx2 network card (don't know if it can be related) host kernel : rhel 63 with 2.6.32 kernel guest kernel : 2.6.32 (debian squeeze, ubuntu). No problem with guest kernel 3.2 ----- Mail original ----- De: "Dietmar Maurer" =C3=80: "Peter Lieven" Cc: "Stefan Hajnoczi" , "Peter Lieven" , = "Jan Kiszka" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirki= n" Envoy=C3=A9: Vendredi 16 Novembre 2012 11:44:26 Objet: Re: [Qemu-devel] slow virtio network with vhost=3Don and multiple co= res > > I only tested with RHEL6.3 kernel on host. > > can you check if there is a difference on interrupt delivery between thos= e > two? > > cat /proc/interrupts should be sufficient after some traffic has flown. While trying to reproduce the bug, we just detected that it depends on the = hardware (mainboard) you run on. Sigh :-/