On 2016/03/02 11:24, Qiu, Michael wrote:
> On 3/1/2016 10:19 AM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>> On 2016/03/01 11:00, Qiu, Michael wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2016 4:36 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
On 2016/02/26 13:29, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
> [...]
>
> BTW, I have set the frontend mergeable off.
> I
On 3/1/2016 10:19 AM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
> On 2016/03/01 11:00, Qiu, Michael wrote:
>> On 2/26/2016 4:36 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>>> On 2016/02/26 13:29, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
[...]
BTW, I have set the frontend mergeable off.
I have checked below cases.
- Case1:
On 2016/03/01 11:00, Qiu, Michael wrote:
> On 2/26/2016 4:36 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>> On 2016/02/26 13:29, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>>> On 2016/02/25 16:51, Qiu, Michael wrote:
On 2/24/2016 1:10 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
> On 2016/02/24 11:45, Qiu, Michael wrote:
>> Hi, Tetsuya
On 2016/02/26 13:29, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
> On 2016/02/25 16:51, Qiu, Michael wrote:
>> On 2/24/2016 1:10 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>>> On 2016/02/24 11:45, Qiu, Michael wrote:
Hi, Tetsuya
When I applied your v6 patch, I could reach 9.5Mpps with 64B packet.
But when
On 2016/02/25 16:51, Qiu, Michael wrote:
> On 2/24/2016 1:10 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>> On 2016/02/24 11:45, Qiu, Michael wrote:
>>> Hi, Tetsuya
>>>
>>> When I applied your v6 patch, I could reach 9.5Mpps with 64B packet.
>>>
>>> But when apply v9 only 8.4 Mpps, could you figure out why has
>>>
On 2/24/2016 1:10 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
> On 2016/02/24 11:45, Qiu, Michael wrote:
>> Hi, Tetsuya
>>
>> When I applied your v6 patch, I could reach 9.5Mpps with 64B packet.
>>
>> But when apply v9 only 8.4 Mpps, could you figure out why has
>> performance drop?
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks for
On 2016/02/24 11:45, Qiu, Michael wrote:
> Hi, Tetsuya
>
> When I applied your v6 patch, I could reach 9.5Mpps with 64B packet.
>
> But when apply v9 only 8.4 Mpps, could you figure out why has
> performance drop?
Hi Michael,
Thanks for checking it.
I tried to re-produce it, but I don't see the
Hi, Tetsuya
When I applied your v6 patch, I could reach 9.5Mpps with 64B packet.
But when apply v9 only 8.4 Mpps, could you figure out why has
performance drop?
Thanks,
Michael
On 2/9/2016 5:38 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
> The patch introduces a new PMD. This PMD is implemented as thin wrapper
The patch introduces a new PMD. This PMD is implemented as thin wrapper
of librte_vhost.
PATCH v9 changes:
- Fix a null pointer access issue implemented in v8 patch.
PATCH v8 changes:
- Manage ether devices list instead of internal structures list.
- Remove needless NULL checking.
- Replace
9 matches
Mail list logo