From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Asias He Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] virtio_add_buf replacement. Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:09:41 +0800 Message-ID: <20130306080940.GA4034@hj.localdomain> References: <87k3plaz3d.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87k3plaz3d.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Rusty Russell Cc: mst@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, sjur.brandeland@stericsson.com List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 04:15:02PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > OK, so I've spent a few days benchmarking. Turns out 80% of > virtio_add_buf cases are uni-directional (including the > always-performance-sensitive networking code), and that gets no > performance penalty (though tests with real networking would be > appreciated!). > > I'm not reposting all the "convert driver to virtio_add_outbuf()" > patches: just the scsi one which I didn't have before. I won't actually > remove virtio_add_buf() until the *following* merge window, just to be > sure. Why not send out all the patches in this series? It would be much easier for people to read in one thread. > One annoying thing about benchmarking is that in some cases, speeding up > one side can make the whole thing slower, due to more wakeups. > Device-side polling techniques might be required in future to get more > performance. > > Cheers, > Rusty. > _______________________________________________ > Virtualization mailing list > Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization -- Asias