From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] vhost: enable any layout
	feature
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:50:28 +0800
Message-ID: <20161010035028.GX1597@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1474872056-24665-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <1474872056-24665-2-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <CAOaVG17N_giiwPwWg-=8eHCCTGOcLHPxJBUxrx04YhLp2EjCdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160926221112-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20160927031158.GA25823@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <20160927224935-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20160928022848.GE1597@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <bfe463e9-0d1a-c136-4115-7620f9e6ec90@redhat.com>
 <20160929205047-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <2889e609-f750-a4e1-66f8-768bb07a2339@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>, dev@dpdk.org,
 qemu-devel@nongnu.org
To: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171B0475E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:49:38 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2889e609-f750-a4e1-66f8-768bb07a2339@redhat.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:05:22PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> >so doing this unconditionally would be a spec violation, but if you see
> >value in this, we can add a feature bit.
> Right it would be a spec violation, so it should be done conditionally.
> If a feature bit is to be added, what about VIRTIO_NET_F_NO_TX_HEADER?
> It would imply VIRTIO_NET_F_CSUM not set, and no GSO features set.
> If negotiated, we wouldn't need to prepend a header.

If we could skip Tx header, I think we could also skip Rx header, in the
case when mrg-rx is aslo turned off?

> From the micro-benchmarks results, we can expect +10% compared to
> indirect descriptors, and + 5% compared to using 2 descs in the
> virtqueue.
> Also, it should have the same benefits as indirect descriptors for 0%
> pkt loss (as we can fill 2x more packets in the virtqueue).
> 
> What do you think?

I would vote for this. It should yield maximum performance for the case
that it's guaranteed that packet size will always fit in a typical MTU
(1500).

	--yliu