Krishna Kumar2/India/IBM wrote on 10/14/2010 05:47:54 PM: Sorry, it should read "txq=8" below. - KK > There's a significant reduction in CPU/SD utilization with your > patch. Following is the performance of ORG vs MQ+mm patch: > > _________________________________________________ > Org vs MQ+mm patch txq=2 > # BW% CPU/RCPU% SD/RSD% > _________________________________________________ > 1 2.26 -1.16 .27 -20.00 0 > 2 35.07 29.90 21.81 0 -11.11 > 4 55.03 84.57 37.66 26.92 -4.62 > 8 73.16 118.69 49.21 45.63 -.46 > 16 77.43 98.81 47.89 24.07 -7.80 > 24 71.59 105.18 48.44 62.84 18.18 > 32 70.91 102.38 47.15 49.22 8.54 > 40 63.26 90.58 41.00 85.27 37.33 > 48 45.25 45.99 11.23 14.31 -12.91 > 64 42.78 41.82 5.50 .43 -25.12 > 80 31.40 7.31 -18.69 15.78 -11.93 > 96 27.60 7.79 -18.54 17.39 -10.98 > 128 23.46 -11.89 -34.41 -.41 -25.53 > _________________________________________________ > BW: 40.2 CPU/RCPU: 29.9,-2.2 SD/RSD: 12.0,-15.6 > > Following is the performance of MQ vs MQ+mm patch: > _____________________________________________________ > MQ vs MQ+mm patch > # BW% CPU% RCPU% SD% RSD% > _____________________________________________________ > 1 4.98 -.58 .84 -20.00 0 > 2 5.17 2.96 2.29 0 -4.00 > 4 -.18 .25 -.16 3.12 .98 > 8 -5.47 -1.36 -1.98 17.18 16.57 > 16 -1.90 -6.64 -3.54 -14.83 -12.12 > 24 -.01 23.63 14.65 57.61 46.64 > 32 .27 -3.19 -3.11 -22.98 -22.91 > 40 -1.06 -2.96 -2.96 -4.18 -4.10 > 48 -.28 -2.34 -3.71 -2.41 -3.81 > 64 9.71 33.77 30.65 81.44 77.09 > 80 -10.69 -31.07 -31.70 -29.22 -29.88 > 96 -1.14 5.98 .56 -11.57 -16.14 > 128 -.93 -15.60 -18.31 -19.89 -22.65 > _____________________________________________________ > BW: 0 CPU/RCPU: -4.2,-6.1 SD/RSD: -13.1,-15.6 > _____________________________________________________ > > Each test case is for 60 secs, sum over two runs (except > when number of netperf sessions is 1, which has 7 runs > of 10 secs each), numcpus=4, numtxqs=8, etc. No tuning > other than taskset each vhost to cpus 0-3. > > Thanks, > > - KK -- 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
