Re: vhost net: performance with ping benchmark

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

 



On 08/25/2009 05:22 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:

I think 2.6.32 is pushing it.

2.6.32 is pushing it, but we need to push it.

I think some time is needed to flush out the userspace interface. In particular, I don't think Mark's comments have been adequately addressed. If a version were merged without GSO support, some mechanism to do feature detection would be needed in the userspace API.

I don't see any point in merging without gso (unless it beats userspace with gso, which I don't think will happen). In any case we'll need feature negotiation.

I think this is likely going to be needed regardless. I also think the tap compatibility suggestion would simplify the consumption of this in userspace.

What about veth pairs?

I'd like some time to look at get_state/set_state ioctl()s along with dirty tracking support. It's a much better model for live migration IMHO.

My preference is ring proxying. Not we'll need ring proxying (or at least event proxying) for non-MSI guests.

I think so more thorough benchmarking would be good too. In particular, netperf/iperf runs would be nice.

Definitely.

--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
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