[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1296748680.25430.169.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 07:58:00 -0800
From: Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
mashirle@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org, Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
Steve Dobbelstein <steved@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Network performance with small packets
On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 08:13 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Initial TCP_STREAM performance results I got for guest to local
> host
> > 4.2Gb/s for 1K message size, (vs. 2.5Gb/s)
> > 6.2Gb/s for 2K message size, and (vs. 3.8Gb/s)
> > 9.8Gb/s for 4K message size. (vs.5.xGb/s)
>
> What is the average packet size, # bytes per ack, and the # of
> interrupts
> per packet? It could be that just slowing down trahsmission
> makes GSO work better.
There is no TX interrupts with dropping packet.
GSO/TSO is the key for small message performance, w/o GSO/TSO, the
performance is limited to about 2Gb/s no matter how big the message size
it is. I think any work we try here will increase large packet size
rate. BTW for dropping packet, TCP increased fast retrans, not slow
start.
I will collect tcpdump, netstart before and after data to compare packet
size/rate w/o w/i the patch.
Thanks
Shirley
--
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