| 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: <509024F4.8080408@hp.com> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:05:24 -0700 From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com> To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> CC: mst@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, krkumar2@...ibm.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [rfc net-next v6 0/3] Multiqueue virtio-net On 10/30/2012 03:03 AM, Jason Wang wrote: > Hi all: > > This series is an update version of multiqueue virtio-net driver based on > Krishna Kumar's work to let virtio-net use multiple rx/tx queues to do the > packets reception and transmission. Please review and comments. > > Changes from v5: > - Align the implementation with the RFC spec update v4 > - Switch the mode between single mode and multiqueue mode without reset > - Remove the 256 limitation of queues > - Use helpers to do the mapping between virtqueues and tx/rx queues > - Use commbined channels instead of separated rx/tx queus when do the queue > number configuartion > - Other coding style comments from Michael > > Reference: > - A protype implementation of qemu-kvm support could by found in > git://github.com/jasowang/qemu-kvm-mq.git > - V5 could be found at http://lwn.net/Articles/505388/ > - V4 could be found at https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/25/120 > - V2 could be found at http://lwn.net/Articles/467283/ > - Michael virtio-spec: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg209986.html > > Perf Numbers: > > - Pktgen test shows the receiving capability of the multiqueue virtio-net were > dramatically improved. > - Netperf result shows latency were greately improved according to the test > result. I suppose it is technically correct to say that latency was improved, but usually for aggregate request/response tests I tend to talk about the aggregate transactions per second. Do you have a hypothesis as to why the improvement dropped going to 20 concurrent sessions from 10? rick jones > Netperf Local VM to VM test: > - VM1 and its vcpu/vhost thread in numa node 0 > - VM2 and its vcpu/vhost thread in numa node 1 > - a script is used to lauch the netperf with demo mode and do the postprocessing > to measure the aggreagte result with the help of timestamp > - average of 3 runs > > TCP_RR: > size/session/+lat%/+normalize% > 1/ 1/ 0%/ 0% > 1/ 10/ +52%/ +6% > 1/ 20/ +27%/ +5% > 64/ 1/ 0%/ 0% > 64/ 10/ +45%/ +4% > 64/ 20/ +28%/ +7% > 256/ 1/ -1%/ 0% > 256/ 10/ +38%/ +2% > 256/ 20/ +27%/ +6% > TCP_CRR: > size/session/+lat%/+normalize% > 1/ 1/ -7%/ -12% > 1/ 10/ +34%/ +3% > 1/ 20/ +3%/ -8% > 64/ 1/ -7%/ -3% > 64/ 10/ +32%/ +1% > 64/ 20/ +4%/ -7% > 256/ 1/ -6%/ -18% > 256/ 10/ +33%/ 0% > 256/ 20/ +4%/ -8% > STREAM: > size/session/+thu%/+normalize% > 1/ 1/ -3%/ 0% > 1/ 2/ -1%/ 0% > 1/ 4/ -2%/ 0% > 64/ 1/ 0%/ +1% > 64/ 2/ -6%/ -6% > 64/ 4/ -8%/ -14% > 256/ 1/ 0%/ 0% > 256/ 2/ -48%/ -52% > 256/ 4/ -50%/ -55% > 512/ 1/ +4%/ +5% > 512/ 2/ -29%/ -33% > 512/ 4/ -37%/ -49% > 1024/ 1/ +6%/ +7% > 1024/ 2/ -46%/ -51% > 1024/ 4/ -15%/ -17% > 4096/ 1/ +1%/ +1% > 4096/ 2/ +16%/ -2% > 4096/ 4/ +31%/ -10% > 16384/ 1/ 0%/ 0% > 16384/ 2/ +16%/ +9% > 16384/ 4/ +17%/ -9% > > Netperf test between external host and guest over 10gb(ixgbe): > - VM thread and vhost threads were pinned int the node 0 > - a script is used to lauch the netperf with demo mode and do the postprocessing > to measure the aggreagte result with the help of timestamp > - average of 3 runs > > TCP_RR: > size/session/+lat%/+normalize% > 1/ 1/ 0%/ +6% > 1/ 10/ +41%/ +2% > 1/ 20/ +10%/ -3% > 64/ 1/ 0%/ -10% > 64/ 10/ +39%/ +1% > 64/ 20/ +22%/ +2% > 256/ 1/ 0%/ +2% > 256/ 10/ +26%/ -17% > 256/ 20/ +24%/ +10% > TCP_CRR: > size/session/+lat%/+normalize% > 1/ 1/ -3%/ -3% > 1/ 10/ +34%/ -3% > 1/ 20/ 0%/ -15% > 64/ 1/ -3%/ -3% > 64/ 10/ +34%/ -3% > 64/ 20/ -1%/ -16% > 256/ 1/ -1%/ -3% > 256/ 10/ +38%/ -2% > 256/ 20/ -2%/ -17% > TCP_STREAM:(guest receiving) > size/session/+thu%/+normalize% > 1/ 1/ +1%/ +14% > 1/ 2/ 0%/ +4% > 1/ 4/ -2%/ -24% > 64/ 1/ -6%/ +1% > 64/ 2/ +1%/ +1% > 64/ 4/ -1%/ -11% > 256/ 1/ +3%/ +4% > 256/ 2/ 0%/ -1% > 256/ 4/ 0%/ -15% > 512/ 1/ +4%/ 0% > 512/ 2/ -10%/ -12% > 512/ 4/ 0%/ -11% > 1024/ 1/ -5%/ 0% > 1024/ 2/ -11%/ -16% > 1024/ 4/ +3%/ -11% > 4096/ 1/ +27%/ +6% > 4096/ 2/ 0%/ -12% > 4096/ 4/ 0%/ -20% > 16384/ 1/ 0%/ -2% > 16384/ 2/ 0%/ -9% > 16384/ 4/ +10%/ -2% > TCP_MAERTS:(guest sending) > 1/ 1/ -1%/ 0% > 1/ 2/ 0%/ 0% > 1/ 4/ -5%/ 0% > 64/ 1/ 0%/ 0% > 64/ 2/ -7%/ -8% > 64/ 4/ -7%/ -8% > 256/ 1/ 0%/ 0% > 256/ 2/ -28%/ -28% > 256/ 4/ -28%/ -29% > 512/ 1/ 0%/ 0% > 512/ 2/ -15%/ -13% > 512/ 4/ -53%/ -59% > 1024/ 1/ +4%/ +13% > 1024/ 2/ -7%/ -18% > 1024/ 4/ +1%/ -18% > 4096/ 1/ +2%/ 0% > 4096/ 2/ +3%/ -19% > 4096/ 4/ -1%/ -19% > 16384/ 1/ -3%/ -1% > 16384/ 2/ 0%/ -12% > 16384/ 4/ 0%/ -10% > > Jason Wang (2): > virtio_net: multiqueue support > virtio-net: change the number of queues through ethtool > > Krishna Kumar (1): > virtio_net: Introduce VIRTIO_NET_F_MULTIQUEUE > > drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 790 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > include/uapi/linux/virtio_net.h | 19 + > 2 files changed, 594 insertions(+), 215 deletions(-) > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" 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