On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:18:36PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote: > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 02/23/2011 12:09:15 PM: > > Hi Michael, > > > > Yes. Michael Tsirkin had wanted to see how the MQ RX patch > > > would look like, so I was in the process of getting the two > > > working together. The patch is ready and is being tested. > > > Should I send a RFC patch at this time? > > > > Yes, please do. > > Sure, will get a build/test on latest bits and send in 1-2 days. > > > > The TX-only patch helped the guest TX path but didn't help > > > host->guest much (as tested using TCP_MAERTS from the guest). > > > But with the TX+RX patch, both directions are getting > > > improvements. > > > > Also, my hope is that with appropriate queue mapping, > > we might be able to do away with heuristics to detect > > single stream load that TX only code needs. > > Yes, that whole stuff is removed, and the TX/RX path is > unchanged with this patch (thankfully :) Cool. I was wondering whether in that case, we can do without host kernel changes at all, and use a separate fd for each TX/RX pair. The advantage of that approach is that this way, the max fd limit naturally sets an upper bound on the amount of resources userspace can use up. Thoughts? In any case, pls don't let the above delay sending an RFC. > > > Remote testing is still to be done. > > > > Others might be able to help here once you post the patch. > > That's great, will appreciate any help. > > 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
