On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 01:52:35PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 18:10:02 +0200 > > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 01:35:52AM -0500, David Miller wrote: > >> From: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 09:39:11 +0530 > >> > >> > Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 11/25/2011 08:51:57 AM: > >> >> > >> >> My description is not clear again :( > >> >> I mean the same vhost thead: > >> >> > >> >> vhost thread #0 transmits packets of flow A on processor M > >> >> ... > >> >> vhost thread #0 move to another process N and start to transmit packets > >> >> of flow A > >> > > >> > Thanks for clarifying. Yes, binding vhosts to CPU's > >> > makes the incoming packet go to the same vhost each > >> > time. BTW, are you doing any binding and/or irqbalance > >> > when you run your tests? I am not running either at > >> > this time, but thought both might be useful. > >> > >> So are we going with this patch or are we saying that vhost binding > >> is a requirement? > > > > OK we didn't come to a conclusion so I would be inclined > > to merge this patch as is for 3.2, and revisit later. > > One question though: do these changes affect userspace > > in any way? For example, will this commit us to > > ensure that a single flow gets a unique hash even > > for strange configurations that transmit the same flow > > from multiple cpus? > > Once you sort this out, reply with an Acked-by: for me, thanks. Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
