[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DEEEBB6.5090805@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:25:42 +0800
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>
CC: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/15] KVM: optimize for MMIO handled
On 06/08/2011 11:11 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:58:06 +0800
> Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>> The performance test result:
>>
>> Netperf (TCP_RR):
>> ===========================
>> ept is enabled:
>>
>> Before After
>> 1st 709.58 734.60
>> 2nd 715.40 723.75
>> 3rd 713.45 724.22
>>
>> ept=0 bypass_guest_pf=0:
>>
>> Before After
>> 1st 706.10 709.63
>> 2nd 709.38 715.80
>> 3rd 695.90 710.70
>>
>
> In what condition, does TCP_RR perform so bad?
>
> On 1Gbps network, directly connecting two Intel servers,
> I got 20 times better result before.
>
> Even when I used a KVM guest as the netperf client,
> I got more than 10 times better result.
>
Um, which case did you test? ept = 1 or ept=0 bypass_guest_pf=0 or both?
> Could you tell me a bit more details of your test?
>
Sure, KVM guest is the client, and it uses e1000 NIC, and uses NAT
network connect to the netperf server, the bandwidth of our network
is 100M.
--
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