"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 20/08/2014 01:57:10 PM: > > 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@xxxxxxxxxx> > > This really needs more thourough benchmarking report, including > system data. One good example for a related patch: > http://lwn.net/Articles/551179/ > though for virtualization, we need data about host as well, and if you > want to look at streaming benchmarks, you need to test different message > sizes and measure packet size. > Hi Michael, I have already tried running netperf with several message sizes: 64,128,256,512,600,800... But the results are inconsistent even in the baseline/unpatched configuration. For smaller msg sizes, I get consistent numbers. However, at some point, when I increase the msg size I get unstable results. For example, for a 512B msg, I get two scenarios: vm utilization 100%, vhost utilization 75%, throughput ~6300 vm utilization 80%, vhost utilization 13%, throughput ~9400 (line rate) I don't know why vhost is behaving that way for certain message sizes. Do you have any insight to why this is happening? Thank you, Razya -- 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
