On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 19:37 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/04/2011 07:34 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > > > I'm confused. didn't you see a bigger benefit for guest->host by > > > switching indirect off? > > > > The 5% improvement is over the 'regular' indirect on, not over indirect > > off. Sorry for the confusion there. > > > > I suggested this change regardless of the outcome of indirect descriptor > > threshold discussion, since it would help anyways. > > For net, this makes sense. For block, it reduces the effective queue > depth, so it's not a trivial change. It probably makes sense there too, > though. It doesn't have to be limited at that number, anything above that can go through the regular kmalloc() path. -- Sasha. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
