Displaying 18 results from an estimated 18 matches for "9.3mbit".
2014 Mar 07
5
[PATCH net V2] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation
of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since
any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest
transmission. Consider the following setup:
+-----+ +-----+
| VM1 | | VM2 |
+--+--+
2014 Mar 07
5
[PATCH net V2] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation
of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since
any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest
transmission. Consider the following setup:
+-----+ +-----+
| VM1 | | VM2 |
+--+--+
2014 Feb 25
2
[PATCH net] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation
of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since
any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest
transmission. Consider the following setup:
+-----+ +-----+
| VM1 | | VM2 |
+--+--+
2014 Feb 25
2
[PATCH net] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation
of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since
any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest
transmission. Consider the following setup:
+-----+ +-----+
| VM1 | | VM2 |
+--+--+
2014 Mar 13
3
[PATCH net V2] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
On 03/10/2014 04:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> > We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
>> > exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation
>> > of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since
>> > any delay or blocking
2014 Mar 13
3
[PATCH net V2] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
On 03/10/2014 04:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> > We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
>> > exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation
>> > of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since
>> > any delay or blocking
2014 Feb 26
2
[PATCH net] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
>> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation
>> of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since
>> any delay or blocking of a single packet
2014 Feb 26
2
[PATCH net] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
>> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation
>> of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since
>> any delay or blocking of a single packet
2014 Feb 26
2
[PATCH net] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
On 02/26/2014 02:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote:
> On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
>>>> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation
2014 Feb 26
2
[PATCH net] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
On 02/26/2014 02:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote:
> On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
>>>> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation
2014 Mar 07
0
[PATCH net V2] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
From: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:28:27 +0800
> This is because the delay added by htb may lead the delay the finish
> of DMAs and cause the pending DMAs for tap0 exceeds the limit
> (VHOST_MAX_PEND). In this case vhost stop handling tx request until
> htb send some packets. The problem here is all of the packets
> transmission were blocked
2014 Feb 27
1
[PATCH net] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
On 02/26/2014 05:23 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 03:11:21PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> > On 02/26/2014 02:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote:
>>> > >On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> > >>On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> > >>>On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason
2014 Feb 27
1
[PATCH net] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
On 02/26/2014 05:23 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 03:11:21PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> > On 02/26/2014 02:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote:
>>> > >On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> > >>On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> > >>>On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason
2014 Feb 25
0
[PATCH net] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation
> of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since
> any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest
> transmission. Consider the following
2014 Mar 17
0
[PATCH net V2] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
On 03/13/2014 09:28 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 03/10/2014 04:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
>>>> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation
>>>> of both host and guest. But it was too
2014 Feb 26
0
[PATCH net] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 03:11:21PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 02/26/2014 02:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote:
> >On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote:
> >>On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >>>>We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
>
2014 Mar 10
0
[PATCH net V2] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation
> of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since
> any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest
> transmission. Consider the following
2014 Feb 26
0
[PATCH net] vhost: net: switch to use data copy if pending DMAs exceed the limit
On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs
>>> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation
>>> of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some