vhost net: performance with ping benchmark
Michael S. Tsirkin
mst at redhat.com
Mon Aug 24 23:46:04 PDT 2009
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 07:14:29AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 08/25/2009 05:22 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> I think 2.6.32 is pushing it.
>
> 2.6.32 is pushing it, but we need to push it.
>
>> I think some time is needed to flush out the userspace interface. In
>> particular, I don't think Mark's comments have been adequately
>> addressed. If a version were merged without GSO support, some
>> mechanism to do feature detection would be needed in the userspace API.
>>
>
> I don't see any point in merging without gso (unless it beats userspace
> with gso, which I don't think will happen). In any case we'll need
> feature negotiation.
>
>> I think this is likely going to be needed regardless. I also think
>> the tap compatibility suggestion would simplify the consumption of
>> this in userspace.
>
> What about veth pairs?
>
>> I'd like some time to look at get_state/set_state ioctl()s along with
>> dirty tracking support. It's a much better model for live migration
>> IMHO.
>
> My preference is ring proxying. Not we'll need ring proxying (or at
> least event proxying) for non-MSI guests.
Exactly, that's what I meant earlier. That's enough, isn't it, Anthony?
>> I think so more thorough benchmarking would be good too. In
>> particular, netperf/iperf runs would be nice.
>
> Definitely.
>
> --
> I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
> signature is too narrow to contain.
More information about the Virtualization
mailing list