On 11/13/2015 05:20 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On 11/12/2015 08:02 PM, Felipe Franciosi wrote:
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> I understand your busy loop timeout is quite conservative at 50us. Did you
>> try any other values?
> I've also tried 20us. And results shows 50us was better in:
>
> - very small pack
On 11/12/2015 08:02 PM, Felipe Franciosi wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> I understand your busy loop timeout is quite conservative at 50us. Did you
> try any other values?
I've also tried 20us. And results shows 50us was better in:
- very small packet tx (e.g 64bytes at most 46% improvement)
- TCP_RR (
Hi Jason,
I understand your busy loop timeout is quite conservative at 50us. Did you try
any other values?
Also, did you measure how polling affects many VMs talking to each other (e.g.
20 VMs on each host, perhaps with several vNICs each, transmitting to a
corresponding VM/vNIC pair on anothe
On 11/12/2015 06:16 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> This series tries to add basic busy polling for vhost net. The idea is
> simple: at the end of tx/rx processing, busy polling for new tx added
> descriptor and rx receive socket for a while. The maximum number of
> time (in us) could be spen
Hi all:
This series tries to add basic busy polling for vhost net. The idea is
simple: at the end of tx/rx processing, busy polling for new tx added
descriptor and rx receive socket for a while. The maximum number of
time (in us) could be spent on busy polling was specified ioctl.
Test were done
