search for: test1time

Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "test1time".

Did you mean: test1file
2019 Jul 23
2
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
...done with default >> driver with the value of 1/2 * queue, while test2 is with my patch and >> min_numfree set to 64 (the default budget value). We can see average >> drop packets do decrease a lot in test2. Let me know if you need the >> full testing data. >> >> test1Time??? avgDropPackets??? test2Time??? avgDropPackets??? pps >> >>> 16:21.0??? 12.295??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k >>> 17:19.1??? 15.244??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k >>> 18:17.5??? 18.789??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k >>> 19:15.1??? 14.208??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k >>> 2...
2019 Jul 23
2
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
...done with default >> driver with the value of 1/2 * queue, while test2 is with my patch and >> min_numfree set to 64 (the default budget value). We can see average >> drop packets do decrease a lot in test2. Let me know if you need the >> full testing data. >> >> test1Time??? avgDropPackets??? test2Time??? avgDropPackets??? pps >> >>> 16:21.0??? 12.295??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k >>> 17:19.1??? 15.244??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k >>> 18:17.5??? 18.789??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k >>> 19:15.1??? 14.208??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k >>> 2...
2019 Jul 19
1
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
...e is the snippet from our test result. Test1 was done with default driver with the value of 1/2 * queue, while test2 is with my patch and min_numfree set to 64 (the default budget value). We can see average drop packets do decrease a lot in test2. Let me know if you need the full testing data. test1Time??? avgDropPackets??? test2Time??? avgDropPackets??? pps > 16:21.0??? 12.295??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k > 17:19.1??? 15.244??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k > 18:17.5??? 18.789??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k > 19:15.1??? 14.208??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k > 20:13.2??? 20.818??? 56:50.4??? 0.267??? 300k &gt...
2019 Jul 19
0
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
...result. Test1 was done with default > driver with the value of 1/2 * queue, while test2 is with my patch and > min_numfree set to 64 (the default budget value). We can see average > drop packets do decrease a lot in test2. Let me know if you need the > full testing data. > > test1Time??? avgDropPackets??? test2Time??? avgDropPackets??? pps > > > 16:21.0??? 12.295??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k > > 17:19.1??? 15.244??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k > > 18:17.5??? 18.789??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k > > 19:15.1??? 14.208??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k > > 20:13.2??? 20.818??...
2019 Aug 13
0
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
...; driver with the value of 1/2 * queue, while test2 is with my patch and > >> min_numfree set to 64 (the default budget value). We can see average > >> drop packets do decrease a lot in test2. Let me know if you need the > >> full testing data. > >> > >> test1Time??? avgDropPackets??? test2Time??? avgDropPackets??? pps > >> > >>> 16:21.0??? 12.295??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k > >>> 17:19.1??? 15.244??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k > >>> 18:17.5??? 18.789??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k > >>> 19:15.1??? 14.208??? 56:50.4???...
2019 Jul 18
4
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42:47AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:01:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > On 2019/7/18 ??9:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:55:50PM +0000, ? jiang wrote: > > > > This change makes ring buffer reclaim threshold num_free configurable > > > > for better
2019 Jul 18
4
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42:47AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:01:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > On 2019/7/18 ??9:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:55:50PM +0000, ? jiang wrote: > > > > This change makes ring buffer reclaim threshold num_free configurable > > > > for better