Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Anyway, if we're able to send this many packets, I suspect we'll be able > to also handle much higher throughputs without TX mitigation so that's > what I'm going to look at now. Awesome! I'm prepared to eat my words :) On the subject of TX mitigation, can we please set a standard on how we measure it? For instance, do we bind the the backend qemu to the same CPU as the guest, or do we bind it to a different CPU that shares cache? They're two completely different scenarios and I think we should be explicit about which one we're measuring. Thanks, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
