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  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:	Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:53:47 +0300
From:	Razya Ladelsky <RAZYA@...ibm.com>
To:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc:	abel.gordon@...il.com, Alex Glikson <GLIKSON@...ibm.com>,
	Eran Raichstein <ERANRA@...ibm.com>,
	Joel Nider <JOELN@...ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Yossi Kuperman1 <YOSSIKU@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: Add polling mode

Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com> wrote on 20/08/2014 
11:41:32 AM:


> > 
> > Results:
> > 
> > Netperf, 1 vm:
> > The polling patch improved throughput by ~33% (1516 MB/sec -> 2046 
MB/sec).
> > Number of exits/sec decreased 6x.
> > The same improvement was shown when I tested with 3 vms running 
netperf
> > (4086 MB/sec -> 5545 MB/sec).
> > 
> > filebench, 1 vm:
> > ops/sec improved by 13% with the polling patch. Number of exits 
> was reduced by
> > 31%.
> > The same experiment with 3 vms running filebench showed similar 
numbers.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Razya Ladelsky <razya@...ibm.com>
> 
> Gave it a quick try on s390/kvm. As expected it makes no difference 
> for big streaming workload like iperf.
> uperf with a 1-1 round robin got indeed faster by about 30%.
> The high CPU consumption is something that bothers me though, as 
> virtualized systems tend to be full.
> 
> 

Thanks for confirming the results!
The best way to use this patch would be along with a shared vhost thread 
for multiple
devices/vms, as described in:
http://domino.research.ibm.com/library/cyberdig.nsf/1e4115aea78b6e7c85256b360066f0d4/479e3578ed05bfac85257b4200427735!OpenDocument
This work assumes having a dedicated I/O core where the vhost thread 
serves multiple vms, which 
makes the high cpu utilization less of a concern. 



> > +static int poll_start_rate = 0;
> > +module_param(poll_start_rate, int, S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR);
> > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(poll_start_rate, "Start continuous polling of 
> virtqueue when rate of events is at least this number per jiffy. If 
> 0, never start polling.");
> > +
> > +static int poll_stop_idle = 3*HZ; /* 3 seconds */
> > +module_param(poll_stop_idle, int, S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR);
> > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(poll_stop_idle, "Stop continuous polling of 
> virtqueue after this many jiffies of no work.");
> 
> This seems ridicoudly high. Even one jiffie is an eternity, so 
> setting it to 1 as a default would reduce the CPU overhead for most 
cases.
> If we dont have a packet in one millisecond, we can surely go back 
> to the kick approach, I think.
> 
> Christian
> 

Good point, will reduce it and recheck.
Thank you,
Razya

--
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