[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120829151445.GC7407@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:14:45 +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 Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 05:03:03PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 08/29/2012 01:07 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > 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!
>
> Sure thing!
>
> I've also re-ran it on a IBM server type host instead of my laptop. Here are the
> results:
>
> Vanilla kernel:
>
> MIGRATED TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.33.1
> () port 0 AF_INET
> enable_enobufs failed: getprotobyname
> Recv Send Send
> Socket Socket Message Elapsed
> Size Size Size Time Throughput
> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
>
> 87380 16384 16384 10.00 7922.72
>
> Patch 1, with threshold=16:
OK so let us set it to 16 for virtio-net by default then?
> MIGRATED TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.33.1
> () port 0 AF_INET
> enable_enobufs failed: getprotobyname
> Recv Send Send
> Socket Socket Message Elapsed
> Size Size Size Time Throughput
> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
>
> 87380 16384 16384 10.00 8415.07
>
> Patch 2:
>
> MIGRATED TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.33.1
> () port 0 AF_INET
> enable_enobufs failed: getprotobyname
> Recv Send Send
> Socket Socket Message Elapsed
> Size Size Size Time Throughput
> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
>
> 87380 16384 16384 10.00 8931.05
>
>
> Note that these are simple tests with netperf listening on one end and a simple
> 'netperf -H [host]' within the guest. If there are other tests which may be
> interesting please let me know.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Sasha
Checking that host CPU utilization did not jump would be nice.
E.g. measure BW/host CPU.
--
MST
--
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