[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121116153412.GJ22320@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:34:12 -0500
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Wei Liu <liuw@...w.name>
Cc: ANNIE LI <annie.li@...cle.com>,
Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@....fi>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/4] Implement persistent grant in
xen-netfront/netback
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:35:13PM +0800, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM, ANNIE LI <annie.li@...cle.com> 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
> >
> >
> >
> Interesting results. Have you tested how good it is on a 10G nic, i.e.
> guest sending packets
> through physical network to another host.
Not yet. This was done with two guests pounding each other. I am
setting two machines up for Annie so she can do that type of testing
and also with more guests.
--
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