[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OF3F9F58DB.FFDF5B60-ONC2257D3E.00443320-C2257D3E.004449BE@il.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:26:34 +0300
From: Razya Ladelsky <RAZYA@...ibm.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: "abel.gordon@...il.com" <abel.gordon@...il.com>,
Alex Glikson <GLIKSON@...ibm.com>,
Eran Raichstein <ERANRA@...ibm.com>,
Joel Nider <JOELN@...ibm.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Yossi Kuperman1 <YOSSIKU@...ibm.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] vhost: Add polling mode
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote on 21/08/2014 05:29:41 PM:
> From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
> To: Razya Ladelsky/Haifa/IBM@...IL, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
<mst@...hat.com>
> Cc: "abel.gordon@...il.com" <abel.gordon@...il.com>, Alex Glikson/
> Haifa/IBM@...IL, Eran Raichstein/Haifa/IBM@...IL, Joel Nider/Haifa/
> IBM@...IL, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
> "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
> "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
> <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, Yossi
Kuperman1/Haifa/IBM@...IL
> Date: 21/08/2014 05:31 PM
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] vhost: Add polling mode
>
> From: Razya Ladelsky
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote on 20/08/2014 01:57:10 PM:
> >
> > > > Results:
> > > >
> > > > Netperf, 1 vm:
> > > > The polling patch improved throughput by ~33% (1516 MB/sec ->
> 2046 MB/sec).
> > > > Number of exits/sec decreased 6x.
> > > > The same improvement was shown when I tested with 3 vms running
netperf
> > > > (4086 MB/sec -> 5545 MB/sec).
> > > >
> > > > filebench, 1 vm:
> > > > ops/sec improved by 13% with the polling patch. Number of exits
> > > > was reduced by 31%.
> > > > The same experiment with 3 vms running filebench showed similar
numbers.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Razya Ladelsky <razya@...ibm.com>
> > >
> > > This really needs more thourough benchmarking report, including
> > > system data. One good example for a related patch:
> > > http://lwn.net/Articles/551179/
> > > though for virtualization, we need data about host as well, and if
you
> > > want to look at streaming benchmarks, you need to test different
message
> > > sizes and measure packet size.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> > I have already tried running netperf with several message sizes:
> > 64,128,256,512,600,800...
> > But the results are inconsistent even in the baseline/unpatched
> > configuration.
> > For smaller msg sizes, I get consistent numbers. However, at some
point,
> > when I increase the msg size
> > I get unstable results. For example, for a 512B msg, I get two
scenarios:
> > vm utilization 100%, vhost utilization 75%, throughput ~6300
> > vm utilization 80%, vhost utilization 13%, throughput ~9400 (line
rate)
> >
> > I don't know why vhost is behaving that way for certain message sizes.
> > Do you have any insight to why this is happening?
>
> Have you tried looking at the actual ethernet packet sizes.
> It may well jump between using small packets (the size of the writes)
> and full sized ones.
I will check it,
Thanks,
Razya
>
> If you are trying to measure ethernet packet 'cost' you need to use UDP.
> However that probably uses different code paths.
>
> David
>
>
>
--
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