Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:11:25 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: avi@redhat.com, ghaskins@novell.com, andi@firstfloor.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, agraf@suse.de, pmullaney@novell.com,
       pmorreale@novell.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
       kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus
Message-ID: <20090403011125.GA6557@gondor.apana.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49D5018E.4040801@codemonkey.ws>
Organization: Core
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1064
Lines: 25

Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
>
> Anyway, if we're able to send this many packets, I suspect we'll be able 
> to also handle much higher throughputs without TX mitigation so that's 
> what I'm going to look at now.

Awesome! I'm prepared to eat my words :)

On the subject of TX mitigation, can we please set a standard
on how we measure it? For instance, do we bind the the backend
qemu to the same CPU as the guest, or do we bind it to a different
CPU that shares cache? They're two completely different scenarios
and I think we should be explicit about which one we're measuring.

Thanks,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/