Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Batch writes to MMIO

2008-04-23 Thread Laurent Vivier
Le mercredi 23 avril 2008 à 17:05 +0300, Avi Kivity a écrit : Laurent Vivier wrote: These two patches allow to batch writes to MMIO. When kernel has to send MMIO writes to userspace, it stores them in memory until it has to pass the hand to userspace for another reason. This avoids to

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Batch writes to MMIO

2008-04-23 Thread Avi Kivity
Laurent Vivier wrote: Le mercredi 23 avril 2008 à 17:05 +0300, Avi Kivity a écrit : Laurent Vivier wrote: These two patches allow to batch writes to MMIO. When kernel has to send MMIO writes to userspace, it stores them in memory until it has to pass the hand to userspace for

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Batch writes to MMIO

2008-04-23 Thread Avi Kivity
Anthony Liguori wrote: The ne2k is pretty mmio heavy. You should be able to observe a boost with something like iperf (guest=host) I would think if this is a real savings. If we're just improving ne2k, the complexity isn't worth it. We have two better nics which are widely supported in

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Batch writes to MMIO

2008-04-23 Thread Laurent Vivier
Le mercredi 23 avril 2008 à 10:10 -0500, Anthony Liguori a écrit : [...] The ne2k is pretty mmio heavy. You should be able to observe a boost with something like iperf (guest=host) I would think if this is a real savings. I like your advices :-D I use iperf with e1000 emulation and a

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Batch writes to MMIO

2008-04-23 Thread Avi Kivity
Laurent Vivier wrote: Le mercredi 23 avril 2008 à 10:10 -0500, Anthony Liguori a écrit : [...] The ne2k is pretty mmio heavy. You should be able to observe a boost with something like iperf (guest=host) I would think if this is a real savings. I like your advices :-D I use

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Batch writes to MMIO

2008-04-23 Thread Laurent Vivier
Le mercredi 23 avril 2008 à 19:25 +0300, Avi Kivity a écrit : Laurent Vivier wrote: Le mercredi 23 avril 2008 à 10:10 -0500, Anthony Liguori a écrit : [...] The ne2k is pretty mmio heavy. You should be able to observe a boost with something like iperf (guest=host) I would think if

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Batch writes to MMIO

2008-04-23 Thread Anthony Liguori
Laurent Vivier wrote: Le mercredi 23 avril 2008 à 19:25 +0300, Avi Kivity a écrit : Laurent Vivier wrote: Le mercredi 23 avril 2008 à 10:10 -0500, Anthony Liguori a écrit : [...] The ne2k is pretty mmio heavy. You should be able to observe a boost with something like

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Batch writes to MMIO

2008-04-23 Thread Avi Kivity
Anthony Liguori wrote: How can I check that ? How can I measure latency ? ping (from guest to host) The guest will halt anyway, flushing its mmio queue. Perhaps a ping while a background process spins, consuming all cpu. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Batch writes to MMIO

2008-04-23 Thread Avi Kivity
Anthony Liguori wrote: Avi Kivity wrote: Anthony Liguori wrote: The ne2k is pretty mmio heavy. You should be able to observe a boost with something like iperf (guest=host) I would think if this is a real savings. If we're just improving ne2k, the complexity isn't worth

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Batch writes to MMIO

2008-04-23 Thread Laurent Vivier
Le mercredi 23 avril 2008 à 11:48 -0500, Anthony Liguori a écrit : Laurent Vivier wrote: Le mercredi 23 avril 2008 à 19:25 +0300, Avi Kivity a écrit : Laurent Vivier wrote: Le mercredi 23 avril 2008 à 10:10 -0500, Anthony Liguori a écrit : [...] The ne2k is