On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:52:09AM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote: > Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 02/22/2011 01:17:09 PM: > > Hi Simon, > > > > I have a few questions about the results below: > > > > 1. Are the (%) comparisons between non-mq and mq virtio? > > Yes - mainline kernel with transmit-only MQ patch. > > > 2. Was UDP or TCP used? > > TCP. I had done some initial testing on UDP, but don't have > the results now as it is really old. But I will be running > it again. > > > 3. What was the transmit size (-m option to netperf)? > > I didn't use the -m option, so it defaults to 16K. The > script does: > > netperf -t TCP_STREAM -c -C -l 60 -H $SERVER > > > Also, I'm interested to know what the status of these patches is. > > Are you planing a fresh series? > > 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? > > 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. Remote testing is still to be done. Hi Krishna, thanks for clarifying the test results. I'm looking forward to the forthcoming RFC patches. -- 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
