linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] virtio-ring: Allocate indirect buffers from cache when possible

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]

Message-ID: <20120829110748.GB5970@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:07:48 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc:	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avi@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] virtio-ring: Allocate indirect buffers from cache
 when possible

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:35:00PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 08/28/2012 03:20 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:04:03PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> Currently if VIRTIO_RING_F_INDIRECT_DESC is enabled we will
> >> use indirect descriptors and allocate them using a simple
> >> kmalloc().
> >>
> >> This patch adds a cache which will allow indirect buffers under
> >> a configurable size to be allocated from that cache instead.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
> > 
> > I imagine this helps performance? Any numbers?
> 
> I ran benchmarks on the original RFC, I've re-tested it now and got similar
> numbers to the original ones (virtio-net using vhost-net, thresh=16):
> 
> Before:
> 	Recv   Send    Send
> 	Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
> 	Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
> 	bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/sec
> 
> 	 87380  16384  16384    10.00    4512.12
> 
> After:
> 	Recv   Send    Send
> 	Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
> 	Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
> 	bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/sec
> 
> 	 87380  16384  16384    10.00    5399.18
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Sasha

This is with both patches 1 + 2?
Sorry could you please also test what happens if you apply
- just patch 1
- just patch 2

Thanks!
--
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/