[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110203162042.GA10028@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 18:20:42 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.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, Feb 03, 2011 at 07:58:00AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
> 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
Just a thought: does it help to make tx queue len of the
virtio device smaller?
E.g. match the vq size?
--
MST
--
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