From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Herbert Xu Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:11:25 +0800 Message-ID: <20090403011125.GA6557@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <49D5018E.4040801@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: avi@redhat.com, ghaskins@novell.com, andi@firstfloor.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, agraf@suse.de, pmullaney@novell.com, pmorreale@novell.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49D5018E.4040801@codemonkey.ws> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Anthony Liguori wrote: > > Anyway, if we're able to send this many packets, I suspect we'll be able > to also handle much higher throughputs without TX mitigation so that's > what I'm going to look at now. Awesome! I'm prepared to eat my words :) On the subject of TX mitigation, can we please set a standard on how we measure it? For instance, do we bind the the backend qemu to the same CPU as the guest, or do we bind it to a different CPU that shares cache? They're two completely different scenarios and I think we should be explicit about which one we're measuring. Thanks, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt