netdev - Re: [v3 RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <OFE75E1E91.9722BFB3-ON652577CA.00256D94-652577CA.0027E1CE@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:48:57 +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,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <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 wrote on 10/28/2010 10:44:14 AM:
>
> > > > > Results for UDP BW tests (unidirectional, sum across
> > > > > 3 iterations, each iteration of 45 seconds, default
> > > > > netperf, vhosts bound to cpus 0-3; no other tuning):
> > > >
> > > > Is binding vhost threads to CPUs really required?
> > > > What happens if we let the scheduler do its job?
> > >
> > > Nothing drastic, I remember BW% and SD% both improved a
> > > bit as a result of binding.
> >
> > If there's a significant improvement this would mean that
> > we need to rethink the vhost-net interaction with the scheduler.
>
> I will get a test run with and without binding and post the
> results later today.

Correction: The result with binding is is much better for
SD/CPU compared to without-binding:

_____________________________________________________
     numtxqs=8,vhosts=5, Bind vs No-bind
#     BW%     CPU%     RCPU%     SD%       RSD%
_____________________________________________________
1     11.25     10.77    1.89     0        -6.06
2     18.66     7.20     7.20    -14.28    -7.40
4     4.24     -1.27     1.56    -2.70     -.98
8     14.91    -3.79     5.46    -12.19    -3.76
16    12.32    -8.67     4.63    -35.97    -26.66
24    11.68    -7.83     5.10    -40.73    -32.37
32    13.09    -10.51    6.57    -51.52    -42.28
40    11.04    -4.12     11.23   -50.69    -42.81
48    8.61     -10.30    6.04    -62.38    -55.54
64    7.55     -6.05     6.41    -61.20    -56.04
80    8.74     -11.45    6.29    -72.65    -67.17
96    9.84     -6.01     9.87    -69.89    -64.78
128   5.57     -6.23     8.99    -75.03    -70.97
_____________________________________________________
BW: 10.4%,  CPU/RCPU: -7.4%,7.7%,  SD: -70.5%,-65.7%

Notes:
    1.  All my test results earlier was binding vhost
        to cpus 0-3 for both org and new kernel.
    2.  I am not using MST's use_mq patch, only mainline
        kernel. However, I reported earlier that I got
        better results with that patch. The result for
        MQ vs MQ+use_mm patch (from my earlier mail):

BW: 0   CPU/RCPU: -4.2,-6.1  SD/RSD: -13.1,-15.6

Thanks,

- KK

--
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