RE: [RFC PATCH 2/2] macvtap: TX zero copy between guest and hostkernel

[Xin, Xiaohui]

>From: Shirley Ma [mailto:mashirle@xxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 10:41 AM
>To: Xin, Xiaohui
>Cc: Avi Kivity; David Miller; arnd@xxxxxxxx; mst@xxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 2/2] macvtap: TX zero copy between guest and host kernel
>
>On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 09:50 +0800, Xin, Xiaohui wrote:
>> I think what David said is what we have thought before in mp device.
>> Since we are not sure the exact time the tx buffer was wrote though
>> DMA operation.
>> But the deadline is when the tx buffer was freed. So we only notify
>> the vhost stuff
>> about the write when tx buffer freed. But the deadline is maybe too
>> late for performance.
>
>Have you tried it? If so what's the performance penalty you have seen by
>notifying vhost when tx buffer freed?
>

We did not try it before, as we cared RX side more.

>I am thinking to have a callback in skb destructor,
>vhost_add_used_and_signal gets updated when skb is actually freed, vhost
>vq & head need to be passed to the callback. This might requires vhost
>ring size is at least as big as the lower device driver.
>

That's almost the same what we have done except we use destructor_arg and
another callback..

>Thanks
>Shirley

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/