From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752965Ab2GUAtF (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:49:05 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:56755 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751619Ab2GUAtD (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:49:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20120720.174902.2055189237500355771.davem@davemloft.net> To: mst@redhat.com Cc: jasowang@redhat.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/6] tun zerocopy support From: David Miller In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 24.0.97 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:23:03 +0300 > Same as with macvtap, I get single-percentage wins in CPU utilization > on guest to external from this patchset, and a performance regression on > guest to host, so more work is needed until this feature can move out of > experimental status, but I think it's useful for some people already. > > Pls review and consider for 3.6. It doesn't improve performance in one case, and hurts performance in another. You'll have to give me a more compelling argument than that. You've just given me every reason not to include these patches in 3.6