On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 07:42:51AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote: > On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 12:49 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 11:33:49PM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote: > > > On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 23:14 -0800, Shirley Ma wrote: > > > > w/i guest change, I played around the parameters,for example: I > > could > > > > get 3.7Gb/s with 42% CPU BW increasing from 2.5Gb/s for 1K message > > > > size, > > > > w/i dropping packet, I was able to get up to 6.2Gb/s with similar > > CPU > > > > usage. > > > > > > I meant w/o guest change, only vhost changes. Sorry about that. > > > > > > Shirley > > > > Ah, excellent. What were the parameters? > > I used half of the ring size 129 for packet counters, but the > performance is still not as good as dropping packets on guest, 3.7 Gb/s > vs. 6.2Gb/s. > > Shirley And this is with sndbuf=0 in host, yes? And do you see a lot of tx interrupts? How packets per interrupt? -- MST -- 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
