[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121116152325.GG22320@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:23:25 -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 07:11:07PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 18:29 +0000, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Together with an analysis of what it means and why it is a good thing,
> yes.
OK, lets put that on the TODO list for the next posting. In the meantime -
it sounds like you (the maintainer) are happy with the direction this is going.
The other things we want to do _after_ these patches is to look at the Wei
Liu patches and try to address the different reviewers comments.
The neat thing about them is that they have a concept of a page pool system.
And with persistent pages in both blkback and netback this gets more exciting.
>
> Ian.
>
> >
> > 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