Rusty Russell wrote:
On Sunday 15 June 2008 09:28:34 Anthony Liguori wrote:
Have you benchmarked the driver? I wasn't seeing great performance
myself although I think that was due to some bugs in the vringfd code.
Yeah, every time I get close to benchmarking I find another bug :( But I've
spent some time optimising the normal lguest net device, so we'll have a fair
comparison.
In theory vringfd will get us zero copy from guest sendfile out to external
machines. For anything else we're doing a copy anyway, so avoiding copying
has no great benefit.
There's nothing that prevents zero-copy to be implemented for tun
without vringfd. In fact, I seem to recall that your earlier patches
implemented zero-copy :-)
I like the vringfd model and I think it's a good way to move forward.
My concern is that it introduces an extra syscall in the TX path. Right
now, we do a single write call whereas with vringfd we need to insert
the TX packet into the queue, do a notify, and then wait for indication
that the TX has succeeded.
I know we'll win with TSO but we don't need vringfd for TSO. The jury's
still out IMHO as to whether we should do vringfd or just try to merge
TSO tun patches.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
The interface is still worthwhile to provide zero-copy receive on intelligent
or bound NICs, but that's science fiction at the moment...
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
