On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:18:36PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:

quoted

"Michael S. Tsirkin" [off-list ref] wrote on 02/23/2011 12:09:15 PM:

Hi Michael,

quoted

quoted

Yes. Michael Tsirkin had wanted to see how the MQ RX patch
would look like, so I was in the process of getting the two
working together. The patch is ready and is being tested.
Should I send a RFC patch at this time?

Yes, please do.

Sure, will get a build/test on latest bits and send in 1-2 days.

quoted

quoted

The TX-only patch helped the guest TX path but didn't help
host->guest much (as tested using TCP_MAERTS from the guest).
But with the TX+RX patch, both directions are getting
improvements.

Also, my hope is that with appropriate queue mapping,
we might be able to do away with heuristics to detect
single stream load that TX only code needs.

Yes, that whole stuff is removed, and the TX/RX path is
unchanged with this patch (thankfully :)

Cool. I was wondering whether in that case, we can
do without host kernel changes at all,
and use a separate fd for each TX/RX pair.
The advantage of that approach is that this way,
the max fd limit naturally sets an upper bound
on the amount of resources userspace can use up.

Thoughts?

In any case, pls don't let the above delay
sending an RFC.

quoted

quoted

Remote testing is still to be done.

Others might be able to help here once you post the patch.

That's great, will appreciate any help.

Thanks,

- KK