similar to: [PATCH] vhost: Add polling mode

On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:30:35AM +0300, Razya Ladelsky wrote: > From: Razya Ladelsky <razya at il.ibm.com> > Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:47:20 +0300 > Subject: [PATCH] vhost: Add polling mode > > When vhost is waiting for buffers from the guest driver (e.g., more packets to > send in vhost-net's transmit queue), it normally goes to sleep and waits for the > guest to

On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:30:35AM +0300, Razya Ladelsky wrote: > From: Razya Ladelsky <razya at il.ibm.com> > Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:47:20 +0300 > Subject: [PATCH] vhost: Add polling mode > > When vhost is waiting for buffers from the guest driver (e.g., more packets to > send in vhost-net's transmit queue), it normally goes to sleep and waits for the > guest to

On 10/08/14 10:30, Razya Ladelsky wrote: > From: Razya Ladelsky <razya at il.ibm.com> > Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:47:20 +0300 > Subject: [PATCH] vhost: Add polling mode > > When vhost is waiting for buffers from the guest driver (e.g., more packets to > send in vhost-net's transmit queue), it normally goes to sleep and waits for the > guest to "kick" it.

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote on 20/08/2014 01:57:10 PM: > > Results: > > > > Netperf, 1 vm: > > The polling patch improved throughput by ~33% (1516 MB/sec -> 2046 MB/sec). > > Number of exits/sec decreased 6x. > > The same improvement was shown when I tested with 3 vms running netperf > > (4086 MB/sec -> 5545

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote on 20/08/2014 01:57:10 PM: > > Results: > > > > Netperf, 1 vm: > > The polling patch improved throughput by ~33% (1516 MB/sec -> 2046 MB/sec). > > Number of exits/sec decreased 6x. > > The same improvement was shown when I tested with 3 vms running netperf > > (4086 MB/sec -> 5545

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote on 12/08/2014 12:18:50 PM: > From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> > To: David Miller <davem at davemloft.net> > Cc: Razya Ladelsky/Haifa/IBM at IBMIL, kvm at vger.kernel.org, Alex > Glikson/Haifa/IBM at IBMIL, Eran Raichstein/Haifa/IBM at IBMIL, Yossi > Kuperman1/Haifa/IBM at IBMIL,

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote on 12/08/2014 12:18:50 PM: > From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> > To: David Miller <davem at davemloft.net> > Cc: Razya Ladelsky/Haifa/IBM at IBMIL, kvm at vger.kernel.org, Alex > Glikson/Haifa/IBM at IBMIL, Eran Raichstein/Haifa/IBM at IBMIL, Yossi > Kuperman1/Haifa/IBM at IBMIL,

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:45:59 +0200 > On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:30:35AM +0300, Razya Ladelsky wrote: ... > And, did your tests actually produce 100% load on both host CPUs? ... Michael, please do not quote an entire patch just to ask a one line question. I truly, truly, wish it was simpler in modern email clients to

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:45:59 +0200 > On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:30:35AM +0300, Razya Ladelsky wrote: ... > And, did your tests actually produce 100% load on both host CPUs? ... Michael, please do not quote an entire patch just to ask a one line question. I truly, truly, wish it was simpler in modern email clients to

> > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Sorry for the delay, had some problems with my mailbox, and I realized > > just now that > > my reply wasn't sent. > > The vm indeed ALWAYS utilized 100% cpu, whether polling was enabled or > > not. > > The vhost thread utilized less than 100% (of the other cpu) when polling > > was disabled. >

> > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Sorry for the delay, had some problems with my mailbox, and I realized > > just now that > > my reply wasn't sent. > > The vm indeed ALWAYS utilized 100% cpu, whether polling was enabled or > > not. > > The vhost thread utilized less than 100% (of the other cpu) when polling > > was disabled. >

> That was just one example. There many other possibilities. Either > actually make the systems load all host CPUs equally, or divide > throughput by host CPU. > The polling patch adds this capability to vhost, reducing costly exit overhead when the vm is loaded. In order to load the vm I ran netperf with msg size of 256: Without polling: 2480 Mbits/sec, utilization: vm - 100%

> That was just one example. There many other possibilities. Either > actually make the systems load all host CPUs equally, or divide > throughput by host CPU. > The polling patch adds this capability to vhost, reducing costly exit overhead when the vm is loaded. In order to load the vm I ran netperf with msg size of 256: Without polling: 2480 Mbits/sec, utilization: vm - 100%

(restored 'CC, sorry for dropping it originally, Notes is still hard for me) > Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> wrote on 01/25/2016 05:00:05 AM: > On 01/24/2016 05:00 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > > >> Jason Wang <jasowang <at> redhat.com> writes: > >> > >> Hi all: > >> > >> This series tries to

(restored 'CC, sorry for dropping it originally, Notes is still hard for me) > Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> wrote on 01/25/2016 05:00:05 AM: > On 01/24/2016 05:00 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > > >> Jason Wang <jasowang <at> redhat.com> writes: > >> > >> Hi all: > >> > >> This series tries to

Fix the leaking of oldubufs and fd refcnt when fail to initialized used ring. Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> --- drivers/vhost/net.c | 14 +++++++++++--- 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c index ebd08b2..629d6b5 100644 --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c @@ -834,8 +834,10 @@ static

Fix the leaking of oldubufs and fd refcnt when fail to initialized used ring. Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> --- drivers/vhost/net.c | 14 +++++++++++--- 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c index ebd08b2..629d6b5 100644 --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c @@ -834,8 +834,10 @@ static

The following patches were built over linux-next which contains various vhost patches in mst's tree and the vhost_task patchset in Christian Brauner's tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/linux.git kernel.user_worker branch: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/linux.git/log/?h=kernel.user_worker The latter patchset handles the review comment

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:10:03PM +0800, Asias He wrote: > On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 01:03:42PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 04:38:21PM +0800, Asias He wrote: > > > Currently, vhost-net and vhost-scsi are sharing the vhost core code. > > > However, vhost-scsi shares the code by including the vhost.c file > > > directly. > >

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:10:03PM +0800, Asias He wrote: > On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 01:03:42PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 04:38:21PM +0800, Asias He wrote: > > > Currently, vhost-net and vhost-scsi are sharing the vhost core code. > > > However, vhost-scsi shares the code by including the vhost.c file > > > directly. > >