| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] Increase txqueuelen of vif devices
I was wondering about the short queues the other day. They definitely cause
problems with short packet workloads and the suspicion is that the shortness is
largely historical.
I plan to work on a new netback receive side (moving the grant copy into the
guest) shortly, but I have some other stuff to get through before I can make a
proper start. Hope to have something in a few weeks though.
Paul
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James Harper
> Sent: 23 October 2010 00:26
> To: Keir Fraser; Miroslav Rezanina; xen-devel
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Increase txqueuelen of vif devices
>
> >
> > The expectation was that domU would push enough receive buffers to
> dom0 to
> > avoid packet loss. The txqueuelen is just a fallback for that.
> Still,
> yeah,
> > it could be increased if it improves perf given default domU
> netfront
> > behaviour.
> >
>
> I have found the ring a bit small when trying to cope with many
> small
> buffers, but it's workload and system dependent so it should
> probably be
> set on a case by case basis.
>
> Are there any disadvantages to increasing the txqueue?
>
> What ever happened to the new netchannel stuff? Did that promise
> larger
> rings?
>
> James
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home