From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:57:30 +0100 From: tlaronde@polynum.com To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20160222165730.GB3344@polynum.com> References: <20160222131359.GA2152@polynum.com> <9660a4b83c4716e542067787ef079dc9@proxima.alt.za> <89408094bbaa48f7f464c9c1ea4d9df4@hemiola.co.uk> <20160222151234.GB2988@polynum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [9fans] rtl8169 gbe slow Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8806f652-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 04:45:12PM +0000, rod@hemiola.co.uk wrote: > >Does plan9 under lguest actually use the linux > >hardware services? Is plan9 under lguest using "its" implementation > >except for the low level device driving i.e. the ethernet provided > >by the Linux host? > > Yes. The lguest plan9 instance has a virtio ethernet driver, > which is a 'wire' to a tap interface on the host. Packets are routed > at the ip level from the tap to the linux ethernet interface by > the linux kernel in the usual way. I'm not sure why plan9 is half > the speed in this situation, but I feel it might be a red herring, > and that the combination of lguest/plan9 isn't terribly efficient > at minimising the context switching that happens when packets are sent > and received. > If I'm not mistaken, on the server log, even under lguest the string is still "Plan9/hget" so this seems to rule this out. And if the performance (minus emulation/switching overhead) is better using, actually, Linux TCP/IP implementation for the real connection, it will show that this is the Plan9 implementation that has, under some circumstances (perhaps with the size of the packets sent by some server) an unfelicity. -- Thierry Laronde http://www.kergis.com/ http://www.arts-po.fr/ Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C