[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1281489804.3391.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:23:24 -0700
From: Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
To: xiaohui.xin@...el.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, mingo@...e.hu,
davem@...emloft.net, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
jdike@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 00/16] Provide a zero-copy method on KVM
virtio-net.
Hello Xiaohui,
On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 17:23 +0800, xiaohui.xin@...el.com wrote:
> Our goal is to improve the bandwidth and reduce the CPU usage.
> Exact performance data will be provided later.
Have you had any performance data to share here? I tested my
experimental macvtap zero copy for TX only. The performance I have seen
as below without any tuning, (default setting):
Before: netperf 16K message size results with 60 secs run is 7.5Gb/s
over ixgbe 10GbE card. perf top shows:
2103.00 12.9% copy_user_generic_string
1541.00 9.4% handle_tx
1490.00 9.1% _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
1361.00 8.3% _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
1288.00 7.9% _raw_spin_lock
924.00 5.7% vhost_worker
After: netperf results with 60 secs run is 8.1Gb/s, perf output:
1093.00 9.9% _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
1048.00 9.5% handle_tx
934.00 8.5% _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
864.00 7.9% _raw_spin_lock
644.00 5.9% vhost_worker
387.00 3.5% use_mm
I am still working on collecting more data (latency, cpu
utilization...). I will let you know once I get all data for macvtap TX
zero copy. Also I found some vhost performance regression on the new
kernel with tuning. I used to get 9.4Gb/s, now I couldn't get it.
Shirley
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists