linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160527141715.GI23194@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date:	Fri, 27 May 2016 10:17:15 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Michael Rapoport <RAPOPORT@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:22:19PM +0300, Michael Rapoport wrote:
> I've run two guests without any CPU pinning and without any actual 
> interaction with cgroups
> Here's the results (in MBits/sec):
> 
> size |   64  |   256   |  1024   |  4096   |  16384
> -----+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------
> (1)  | 496.8 | 1346.31 | 6058.49 | 13736.2 | 13541.4
> (2)  | 493.3 | 1604.03 | 5723.68 | 10181.4 | 15572.4
> (3)  | 489.7 | 1437.86 | 6251.12 | 12774.2 | 12867.9 
> 
> 
> From what I see, for different packet sizes there's different approach 
> that outperforms the others.
> Moreover, I'd expect that in case when vhost completely takes over the 
> worker thread there would no be difference vs. current state.
> 
> Tejun, can you help explaining these results? 

Heh, the only thing I can tell is the tests seem noisy and weren't run
enough times to draw any conclusion.  Even if the numbers were
consistent, I don't think anybody would be able to tell a lot from
just the results.  If the results can be made stable, perf would be a
good place to start.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun