On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 22:05 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Interesting. Could this is be a variant of the now famuous bufferbloat > then? > > I guess we could drop some packets if we see we are not keeping up. > For > example if we see that the ring is > X% full, we could quickly > complete > Y% without transmitting packets on. Or maybe we should drop some bytes > not packets. It's worth to try to figure out what's the best approach. I will make a patch. > > > > Requesting guest notification and extra interrupts is what we want > to > > avoid to reduce VM exits for saving CPUs. I don't think it's good. > > Yes but how do you explain regression? > One simple theory is that guest net stack became faster > and so the host can't keep up. Yes, that's what I think here. Some qdisc code has been changed recently. > > > > By polling the vq a bit more aggressively, you meant vhost, right? > > > > Shirley > > Yes. I had a similar patch before, I can modify it and test it out. Shirley -- 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
