"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 02/23/2011 09:25:34 PM: > > 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. I will look into this also. Please excuse the delay in sending the patch out faster - my bits are a little old, so it is taking some time to move to the latest kernel and get some initial TCP/UDP test results. I should have it ready by tomorrow. 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
