netdev - Re: 8% performance improved by change tap interact with kernel stack

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:33:25 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Qin Chuanyu <qinchuanyu@...wei.com>
Cc:	jasowang@...hat.com, Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 8% performance improved by change tap interact with kernel stack

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:19:02PM +0800, Qin Chuanyu wrote:
> On 2014/1/28 17:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>I think it's okay - IIUC this way we are processing xmit directly
> >>>instead of going through softirq.
> >>>Was meaning to try this - I'm glad you are looking into this.
> >>>
> >>>Could you please check latency results?
> >>>
> >>netperf UDP_RR 512
> >>test model: VM->host->host
> >>
> >>modified before : 11108
> >>modified after  : 11480
> >>
> >>3% gained by this patch
> >>
> >>
> >Nice.
> >What about CPU utilization?
> >It's trivially easy to speed up networking by
> >burning up a lot of CPU so we must make sure it's
> >not doing that.
> >And I think we should see some tests with TCP as well, and
> >try several message sizes.
> >
> >
> Yes, by burning up more CPU we could get better performance easily.
> So I have bond vhost thread and interrupt of nic on CPU1 while testing.
> 
> modified before, the idle of CPU1 is 0%-1% while testing.
> and after modify, the idle of CPU1 is 2%-3% while testing
> 
> TCP also could gain from this, but pps is less than UDP, so I think
> the improvement would be not so obviously.

Still need to test this doesn't regress but overall looks convincing to me.
Could you send a patch, accompanied by testing results for
throughput latency and cpu utilization for tcp and udp
with various message sizes?

Thanks!

-- 
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