[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121115182928.GB22320@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:29:28 -0500
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
Cc: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@...rix.com>,
ANNIE LI <annie.li@...cle.com>,
Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@....fi>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/4] Implement persistent grant in
xen-netfront/netback
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:15:06AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 10:56 +0000, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > On 15/11/12 09:38, ANNIE LI wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2012-11-15 15:40, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 03:03:07PM +0800, Annie Li wrote:
> > >>> This patch implements persistent grants for xen-netfront/netback. This
> > >>> mechanism maintains page pools in netback/netfront, these page pools is used to
> > >>> save grant pages which are mapped. This way improve performance which is wasted
> > >>> when doing grant operations.
> > >>>
> > >>> Current netback/netfront does map/unmap grant operations frequently when
> > >>> transmitting/receiving packets, and grant operations costs much cpu clock. In
> > >>> this patch, netfront/netback maps grant pages when needed and then saves them
> > >>> into a page pool for future use. All these pages will be unmapped when
> > >>> removing/releasing the net device.
> > >>>
> > >> Do you have performance numbers available already? with/without persistent grants?
> > > I have some simple netperf/netserver test result with/without persistent
> > > grants,
> > >
> > > Following is result of with persistent grant patch,
> > >
> > > Guests, Sum, Avg, Min, Max
> > > 1, 15106.4, 15106.4, 15106.36, 15106.36
> > > 2, 13052.7, 6526.34, 6261.81, 6790.86
> > > 3, 12675.1, 6337.53, 6220.24, 6454.83
> > > 4, 13194, 6596.98, 6274.70, 6919.25
> > >
> > >
> > > Following are result of without persistent patch
> > >
> > > Guests, Sum, Avg, Min, Max
> > > 1, 10864.1, 10864.1, 10864.10, 10864.10
> > > 2, 10898.5, 5449.24, 4862.08, 6036.40
> > > 3, 10734.5, 5367.26, 5261.43, 5473.08
> > > 4, 10924, 5461.99, 5314.84, 5609.14
> >
> > In the block case, performance improvement is seen when using a large
> > number of guests, could you perform the same benchmark increasing the
> > number of guests to 15?
>
> It would also be nice to see some analysis of the numbers which justify
> why this change is a good one without every reviewer having to evaluate
> the raw data themselves. In fact this should really be part of the
> commit message.
You mean like a nice graph, eh?
I will run these patches on my 32GB box and see if I can give you
a nice PDF/jpg.
>
> Ian.
>
--
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