Re: [kvm] Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:18 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
> > Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>> I don't think we even need that to end this debate.  I'm convinced 
> >>> we have a bug somewhere.  Even disabling TX mitigation, I see a ping 
> >>> latency of around 300ns whereas it's only 50ns on the host.  This 
> >>> defies logic so I'm now looking to isolate why that is.
> >>
> >> I'm down to 90us.  Obviously, s/ns/us/g above.  The exec.c changes 
> >> were the big winner... I hate qemu sometimes.
> 
> 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.

Anthony,

Any news on this?  I'm anxious to see virtio-net performance on par with
the virtual-bus results.  Thanks,

Alex

--
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

[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux