On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 03:31:39PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote: > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 02:38:53PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote: > > > Results for UDP BW tests (unidirectional, sum across > > > 3 iterations, each iteration of 45 seconds, default > > > netperf, vhosts bound to cpus 0-3; no other tuning): > > > > Is binding vhost threads to CPUs really required? > > What happens if we let the scheduler do its job? > > Nothing drastic, I remember BW% and SD% both improved a > bit as a result of binding. If there's a significant improvement this would mean that we need to rethink the vhost-net interaction with the scheduler. > I started binding vhost thread > after Avi suggested it in response to my v1 patch (he > suggested some more that I haven't done), and have been > doing only this tuning ever since. This is part of his > mail for the tuning: > > > vhost: > > thread #0: CPU0 > > thread #1: CPU1 > > thread #2: CPU2 > > thread #3: CPU3 > > I simply bound each thread to CPU0-3 instead. > > Thanks, > > - KK -- 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
