[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:44:34 +0200
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] vsock/virtio: optimizations to increase the
throughput
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 03:14:10PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 12:58:34PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > This series tries to increase the throughput of virtio-vsock with slight
> > changes:
> > - patch 1/4: reduces the number of credit update messages sent to the
> > transmitter
> > - patch 2/4: allows the host to split packets on multiple buffers,
> > in this way, we can remove the packet size limit to
> > VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_RX_BUF_SIZE
> > - patch 3/4: uses VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE as the max packet size
> > allowed
> > - patch 4/4: increases RX buffer size to 64 KiB (affects only host->guest)
> >
> > RFC:
> > - maybe patch 4 can be replaced with multiple queues with different
> > buffer sizes or using EWMA to adapt the buffer size to the traffic
> >
> > - as Jason suggested in a previous thread [1] I'll evaluate to use
> > virtio-net as transport, but I need to understand better how to
> > interface with it, maybe introducing sk_buff in virtio-vsock.
> >
> > Any suggestions?
>
> Great performance results, nice job!
:)
>
> Please include efficiency numbers (bandwidth / CPU utilization) in the
> future. Due to the nature of these optimizations it's unlikely that
> efficiency has decreased, so I'm not too worried about it this time.
Thanks for the suggestion! I'll measure also the efficiency for future
optimizations.
Cheers,
Stefano
Powered by blists - more mailing lists