[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3011045.XPVFy0hMGs@tomlt1.ibmoffice.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:01:06 -0500
From: Thomas Lendacky <tahm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
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 Friday, September 07, 2012 09:19:04 AM Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 05:27:23PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> writes:
> >> > Yes without checksum net core always linearizes packets, so yes it is
> >> > screwed.
> >> > For -net, skb always allocates space for 17 frags + linear part so
> >> > it seems sane to do same in virtio core, and allocate, for -net,
> >> > up to max_frags + 1 from cache.
> >> > We can adjust it: no _SG -> 2 otherwise 18.
> >>
> >> But I thought it used individual buffers these days?
> >
> > Yes for receive, no for transmit. That's probably why
> > we should have the threshold per vq, not per device, BTW.
>
> Can someone actually run with my histogram patch and see what the real
> numbers are?
Somehow some HTML got in my first reply, resending...
I ran some TCP_RR and TCP_STREAM sessions, both host-to-guest and
guest-to-host, with a form of the histogram patch applied against a
RHEL6.3 kernel. The histogram values were reset after each test.
Here are the results:
60 session TCP_RR from host-to-guest with 256 byte request and 256 byte
response for 60 seconds:
Queue histogram for virtio1:
Size distribution for input (max=7818456):
1: 7818456 ################################################################
Size distribution for output (max=7816698):
2: 149
3: 7816698 ################################################################
4: 2
5: 1
Size distribution for control (max=1):
0: 0
4 session TCP_STREAM from host-to-guest with 4K message size for 60 seconds:
Queue histogram for virtio1:
Size distribution for input (max=16050941):
1: 16050941 ################################################################
Size distribution for output (max=1877796):
2: 1877796 ################################################################
3: 5
Size distribution for control (max=1):
0: 0
4 session TCP_STREAM from host-to-guest with 16K message size for 60 seconds:
Queue histogram for virtio1:
Size distribution for input (max=16831151):
1: 16831151 ################################################################
Size distribution for output (max=1923965):
2: 1923965 ################################################################
3: 5
Size distribution for control (max=1):
0: 0
4 session TCP_STREAM from guest-to-host with 4K message size for 60 seconds:
Queue histogram for virtio1:
Size distribution for input (max=1316069):
1: 1316069 ################################################################
Size distribution for output (max=879213):
2: 24
3: 24097 #
4: 23176 #
5: 3412
6: 4446
7: 4663
8: 4195
9: 3772
10: 3388
11: 3666
12: 2885
13: 2759
14: 2997
15: 3060
16: 2651
17: 2235
18: 92721 ######
19: 879213 ################################################################
Size distribution for control (max=1):
0: 0
4 session TCP_STREAM from guest-to-host with 16K message size for 60 seconds:
Queue histogram for virtio1:
Size distribution for input (max=1428590):
1: 1428590 ################################################################
Size distribution for output (max=957774):
2: 20
3: 54955 ###
4: 34281 ##
5: 2967
6: 3394
7: 9400
8: 3061
9: 3397
10: 3258
11: 3275
12: 3147
13: 2876
14: 2747
15: 2832
16: 2013
17: 1670
18: 100369 ######
19: 957774 ################################################################
Size distribution for control (max=1):
0: 0
Thanks,
Tom
>
> I'm not convinced that the ideal 17-buffer case actually happens as much
> as we think. And if it's not happening with this netperf test, we're
> testing the wrong thing.
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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