| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:50:59 +0200 From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com> To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.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 08/29/2012 05:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > 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: >> >> 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 > > > And which parameter did you use for patch 2? > Same as in the first one, 16, the only difference in patch 2 is that we use a kmemcache, so there's no point in changing the threshold vs patch 1. Thanks, Sasha -- 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