On 2014/8/13 17:10, Nikolay Nikolaev wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Nikolay Nikolaev > <n.nikolaev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:41 AM, Li Liu <john.liuli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Is anyone there can tell the current status of vhost-net on kvm-arm? >>> >>> Half a year has passed from Isa Ansharullah asked this question: >>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm-arm/msg08152.html >>> >>> I have found two patches which have provided the kvm-arm support of >>> eventfd and irqfd: >>> >>> 1) [RFC PATCH 0/4] ARM: KVM: Enable the ioeventfd capability of KVM on ARM >>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-01/msg01770.html >>> >>> 2) [RFC,v3] ARM: KVM: add irqfd and irq routing support >>> https://patches.linaro.org/32261/ >>> >>> And there's a rough patch for qemu to support eventfd from Ying-Shiuan Pan: >>> >>> [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] ioeventfd support for virtio-mmio >>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-02/msg00715.html >>> >>> But there no any comments of this patch. And I can found nothing about qemu >>> to support irqfd. Do I lost the track? >>> >>> If nobody try to fix it. We have a plan to complete it about virtio-mmio >>> supporing irqfd and multiqueue. >>> >>> >> >> we at Virtual Open Systems did some work and tested vhost-net on ARM >> back in March. >> The setup was based on: >> - host kernel with our ioeventfd patches: >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm-arm/msg08413.html >> >> - qemu with the aforementioned patches from Ying-Shiuan Pan >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-02/msg00715.html >> >> The testbed was ARM Chromebook with Exynos 5250, using a 1Gbps USB3 >> Ethernet adapter connected to a 1Gbps switch. I can't find the actual >> numbers but I remember that with multiple streams the gain was clearly >> seen. Note that it used the minimum required ioventfd implementation >> and not irqfd. >> >> I guess it is feasible to think that it all can be put together and >> rebased + the recent irqfd work. One can achiev even better >> performance (because of the irqfd). >> > > Managed to replicate the setup with the old versions e used in March: > > Single stream from another machine to chromebook with 1Gbps USB3 > Ethernet adapter. > iperf -c <address> -P 1 -i 1 -p 5001 -f k -t 10 > to HOST: 858316 Kbits/sec > to GUEST: 761563 Kbits/sec > > 10 parallel streams > iperf -c <address> -P 10 -i 1 -p 5001 -f k -t 10 > to HOST: 842420 Kbits/sec > to GUEST: 625144 Kbits/sec > Appreciate your work. Is it convenient for you to test the same cases without vhost=on? Then the results will show the improvement of performance clearly only with ioeventfd. I will try to test it with a Hisilicon board which is ongoing. Best regards Li >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> kvmarm mailing list >>> kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm >> >> >> regards, >> Nikolay Nikolaev >> Virtual Open Systems > > . > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
