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:	Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:56:30 +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 Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:41:24PM +0800, Qin Chuanyu wrote:
> On 2014/1/28 18:33, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 
> >>>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!
> >
> because of spring festival of china, the test result would be given
> two week later.
> throughput would be test by netperf, and latency would be tested by
> qperf. Is that OK?

For testing - sounds good. Run vmstat in host to check host cpu utilization.
Pls don't forget to address all issues raised in this thread and in
the old one Eric mentioned:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/52963/
either address in code or address in commit log why it doesn't apply
anymore.

-- 
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