| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4DEF0597.9030101@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:16:07 +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 11:47 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote: >>> 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. >>> > > I see the reason, thank you! > > I used virtio-net and you used e1000. > You are using e1000 to see the MMIO performance change, right? > Hi Takuya, Please applied my fix path when you test it again, thanks! :-) (http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg56017.html) Just then, in order to affirm the performance result, i tested it again, and do not use our office network(since such many boxes in this network), just boot two guests, one runs netperf server, one runs netperf client, both use e1000 and NAT network. I'll test the performance of virtio-net! This is the result: ept = 1: ============================ Before patch: -------------- TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.122.247 (192.168.122.247) port 0 AF_INET Local /Remote Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans. Send Recv Size Size Time Rate bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 1182.27 16384 87380 TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.122.247 (192.168.122.247) port 0 AF_INET Local /Remote Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans. Send Recv Size Size Time Rate bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 1185.84 16384 87380 TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.122.247 (192.168.122.247) port 0 AF_INET Local /Remote Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans. Send Recv Size Size Time Rate bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 1181.58 16384 87380 After patch: -------------- TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.122.247 (192.168.122.247) port 0 AF_INET Local /Remote Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans. Send Recv Size Size Time Rate bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 1205.65 16384 87380 TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.122.247 (192.168.122.247) port 0 AF_INET Local /Remote Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans. Send Recv Size Size Time Rate bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 1216.06 16384 87380 TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.122.247 (192.168.122.247) port 0 AF_INET Local /Remote Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans. Send Recv Size Size Time Rate bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 1215.70 16384 87380 ept = 0, bypass_guest_pf=0: ============================ Before patch: -------------- TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.122.247 (192.168.122.247) port 0 AF_INET Local /Remote Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans. Send Recv Size Size Time Rate bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 1169.70 16384 87380 TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.122.247 (192.168.122.247) port 0 AF_INET Local /Remote Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans. Send Recv Size Size Time Rate bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 1160.82 16384 87380 TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.122.247 (192.168.122.247) port 0 AF_INET Local /Remote Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans. Send Recv Size Size Time Rate bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 1168.01 16384 87380 After patch: -------------- TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.122.247 (192.168.122.247) port 0 AF_INET Local /Remote Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans. Send Recv Size Size Time Rate bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 1266.28 16384 87380 TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.122.247 (192.168.122.247) port 0 AF_INET Local /Remote Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans. Send Recv Size Size Time Rate bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 1268.16 TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.122.247 (192.168.122.247) port 0 AF_INET Local /Remote Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans. Send Recv Size Size Time Rate bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 1267.18 16384 87380 To my surprise is: after patch, the performance of ept = 0, bypass_guest_pf=0 is better than the performance of ept = 1, maybe it is because MMIO is too much in network guests :-) -- 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