| 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: <OF8735A2A4.74B4EE91-ON652577C5.0040D90B-652577C7.0056B99D@in.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:20:38 +0530
From: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
To: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
Cc: anthony@...emonkey.ws, arnd@...db.de, avi@...hat.com,
davem@...emloft.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
mst@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [v3 RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net
> Krishna Kumar2/India/IBM@...IN wrote on 10/20/2010 02:24:52 PM:
Any feedback, comments, objections, issues or bugs about the
patches? Please let me know if something needs to be done.
Some more test results:
_____________________________________________________
Host->Guest BW (numtxqs=2)
# BW% CPU% RCPU% SD% RSD%
_____________________________________________________
1 5.53 .31 .67 -5.88 0
2 -2.11 -1.01 -2.08 4.34 0
4 13.53 10.77 13.87 -1.96 0
8 34.22 22.80 30.53 -8.46 -2.50
16 30.89 24.06 35.17 -5.20 3.20
24 33.22 26.30 43.39 -5.17 7.58
32 30.85 27.27 47.74 -.59 15.51
40 33.80 27.33 48.00 -7.42 7.59
48 45.93 26.33 45.46 -12.24 1.10
64 33.51 27.11 45.00 -3.27 10.30
80 39.28 29.21 52.33 -4.88 12.17
96 32.05 31.01 57.72 -1.02 19.05
128 35.66 32.04 60.00 -.66 20.41
_____________________________________________________
BW: 23.5% CPU/RCPU: 28.6%,51.2% SD/RSD: -2.6%,15.8%
____________________________________________________
Guest->Host 512 byte (numtxqs=2):
# BW% CPU% RCPU% SD% RSD%
_____________________________________________________
1 3.02 -3.84 -4.76 -12.50 -7.69
2 52.77 -15.73 -8.66 -45.31 -40.33
4 -23.14 13.84 7.50 50.58 40.81
8 -21.44 28.08 16.32 63.06 47.43
16 33.53 46.50 27.19 7.61 -6.60
24 55.77 42.81 30.49 -8.65 -16.48
32 52.59 38.92 29.08 -9.18 -15.63
40 50.92 36.11 28.92 -10.59 -15.30
48 46.63 34.73 28.17 -7.83 -12.32
64 45.56 37.12 28.81 -5.05 -10.80
80 44.55 36.60 28.45 -4.95 -10.61
96 43.02 35.97 28.89 -.11 -5.31
128 38.54 33.88 27.19 -4.79 -9.54
_____________________________________________________
BW: 34.4% CPU/RCPU: 35.9%,27.8% SD/RSD: -4.1%,-9.3%
Thanks,
- KK
> [v3 RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net
>
> Following set of patches implement transmit MQ in virtio-net. Also
> included is the user qemu changes. MQ is disabled by default unless
> qemu specifies it.
>
> Changes from rev2:
> ------------------
> 1. Define (in virtio_net.h) the maximum send txqs; and use in
> virtio-net and vhost-net.
> 2. vi->sq[i] is allocated individually, resulting in cache line
> aligned sq[0] to sq[n]. Another option was to define
> 'send_queue' as:
> struct send_queue {
> struct virtqueue *svq;
> struct scatterlist tx_sg[MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 2];
> } ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> and to statically allocate 'VIRTIO_MAX_SQ' of those. I hope
> the submitted method is preferable.
> 3. Changed vhost model such that vhost[0] handles RX and vhost[1-MAX]
> handles TX[0-n].
> 4. Further change TX handling such that vhost[0] handles both RX/TX
> for single stream case.
>
> Enabling MQ on virtio:
> -----------------------
> When following options are passed to qemu:
> - smp > 1
> - vhost=on
> - mq=on (new option, default:off)
> then #txqueues = #cpus. The #txqueues can be changed by using an
> optional 'numtxqs' option. e.g. for a smp=4 guest:
> vhost=on -> #txqueues = 1
> vhost=on,mq=on -> #txqueues = 4
> vhost=on,mq=on,numtxqs=2 -> #txqueues = 2
> vhost=on,mq=on,numtxqs=8 -> #txqueues = 8
>
>
> Performance (guest -> local host):
> -----------------------------------
> System configuration:
> Host: 8 Intel Xeon, 8 GB memory
> Guest: 4 cpus, 2 GB memory
> Test: Each test case runs for 60 secs, sum over three runs (except
> when number of netperf sessions is 1, which has 10 runs of 12 secs
> each). No tuning (default netperf) other than taskset vhost's to
> cpus 0-3. numtxqs=32 gave the best results though the guest had
> only 4 vcpus (I haven't tried beyond that).
>
> ______________ numtxqs=2, vhosts=3 ____________________
> #sessions BW% CPU% RCPU% SD% RSD%
> ________________________________________________________
> 1 4.46 -1.96 .19 -12.50 -6.06
> 2 4.93 -1.16 2.10 0 -2.38
> 4 46.17 64.77 33.72 19.51 -2.48
> 8 47.89 70.00 36.23 41.46 13.35
> 16 48.97 80.44 40.67 21.11 -5.46
> 24 49.03 78.78 41.22 20.51 -4.78
> 32 51.11 77.15 42.42 15.81 -6.87
> 40 51.60 71.65 42.43 9.75 -8.94
> 48 50.10 69.55 42.85 11.80 -5.81
> 64 46.24 68.42 42.67 14.18 -3.28
> 80 46.37 63.13 41.62 7.43 -6.73
> 96 46.40 63.31 42.20 9.36 -4.78
> 128 50.43 62.79 42.16 13.11 -1.23
> ________________________________________________________
> BW: 37.2%, CPU/RCPU: 66.3%,41.6%, SD/RSD: 11.5%,-3.7%
>
> ______________ numtxqs=8, vhosts=5 ____________________
> #sessions BW% CPU% RCPU% SD% RSD%
> ________________________________________________________
> 1 -.76 -1.56 2.33 0 3.03
> 2 17.41 11.11 11.41 0 -4.76
> 4 42.12 55.11 30.20 19.51 .62
> 8 54.69 80.00 39.22 24.39 -3.88
> 16 54.77 81.62 40.89 20.34 -6.58
> 24 54.66 79.68 41.57 15.49 -8.99
> 32 54.92 76.82 41.79 17.59 -5.70
> 40 51.79 68.56 40.53 15.31 -3.87
> 48 51.72 66.40 40.84 9.72 -7.13
> 64 51.11 63.94 41.10 5.93 -8.82
> 80 46.51 59.50 39.80 9.33 -4.18
> 96 47.72 57.75 39.84 4.20 -7.62
> 128 54.35 58.95 40.66 3.24 -8.63
> ________________________________________________________
> BW: 38.9%, CPU/RCPU: 63.0%,40.1%, SD/RSD: 6.0%,-7.4%
>
> ______________ numtxqs=16, vhosts=5 ___________________
> #sessions BW% CPU% RCPU% SD% RSD%
> ________________________________________________________
> 1 -1.43 -3.52 1.55 0 3.03
> 2 33.09 21.63 20.12 -10.00 -9.52
> 4 67.17 94.60 44.28 19.51 -11.80
> 8 75.72 108.14 49.15 25.00 -10.71
> 16 80.34 101.77 52.94 25.93 -4.49
> 24 70.84 93.12 43.62 27.63 -5.03
> 32 69.01 94.16 47.33 29.68 -1.51
> 40 58.56 63.47 25.91 -3.92 -25.85
> 48 61.16 74.70 34.88 .89 -22.08
> 64 54.37 69.09 26.80 -6.68 -30.04
> 80 36.22 22.73 -2.97 -8.25 -27.23
> 96 41.51 50.59 13.24 9.84 -16.77
> 128 48.98 38.15 6.41 -.33 -22.80
> ________________________________________________________
> BW: 46.2%, CPU/RCPU: 55.2%,18.8%, SD/RSD: 1.2%,-22.0%
>
> ______________ numtxqs=32, vhosts=5 ___________________
> # BW% CPU% RCPU% SD% RSD%
> ________________________________________________________
> 1 7.62 -38.03 -26.26 -50.00 -33.33
> 2 28.95 20.46 21.62 0 -7.14
> 4 84.05 60.79 45.74 -2.43 -12.42
> 8 86.43 79.57 50.32 15.85 -3.10
> 16 88.63 99.48 58.17 9.47 -13.10
> 24 74.65 80.87 41.99 -1.81 -22.89
> 32 63.86 59.21 23.58 -18.13 -36.37
> 40 64.79 60.53 22.23 -15.77 -35.84
> 48 49.68 26.93 .51 -36.40 -49.61
> 64 54.69 36.50 5.41 -26.59 -43.23
> 80 45.06 12.72 -13.25 -37.79 -52.08
> 96 40.21 -3.16 -24.53 -39.92 -52.97
> 128 36.33 -33.19 -43.66 -5.68 -20.49
> ________________________________________________________
> BW: 49.3%, CPU/RCPU: 15.5%,-8.2%, SD/RSD: -22.2%,-37.0%
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Krishna Kumar <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists