linux-kernel - Re: [net-next RFC V5 0/5] Multiqueue virtio-net

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:45:27 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
CC:	mst@...hat.com, mashirle@...ibm.com, krkumar2@...ibm.com,
	habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
	tahm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jwhan@...ewood.snu.ac.kr,
	davem@...emloft.net, akong@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	sri@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [net-next RFC V5 0/5] Multiqueue virtio-net

On 07/05/2012 03:29 AM, Jason Wang wrote:

>
> Test result:
>
> 1) 1 vm 2 vcpu 1q vs 2q, 1 - 1q, 2 - 2q, no pinning
>
> - Guest to External Host TCP STREAM
> sessions size throughput1 throughput2   norm1 norm2
> 1 64 650.55 655.61 100% 24.88 24.86 99%
> 2 64 1446.81 1309.44 90% 30.49 27.16 89%
> 4 64 1430.52 1305.59 91% 30.78 26.80 87%
> 8 64 1450.89 1270.82 87% 30.83 25.95 84%

Was the -D test-specific option used to set TCP_NODELAY?  I'm guessing 
from your description of how packet sizes were smaller with multiqueue 
and your need to hack tcp_write_xmit() it wasn't but since we don't have 
the specific netperf command lines (hint hint :) I wanted to make certain.

Instead of calling them throughput1 and throughput2, it might be more 
clear in future to identify them as singlequeue and multiqueue.

Also, how are you combining the concurrent netperf results?  Are you 
taking sums of what netperf reports, or are you gathering statistics 
outside of netperf?

> - TCP RR
> sessions size throughput1 throughput2   norm1 norm2
> 50 1 54695.41 84164.98 153% 1957.33 1901.31 97%

A single instance TCP_RR test would help confirm/refute any non-trivial 
change in (effective) path length between the two cases.

happy benchmarking,

rick jones
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/