"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 11/09/2010 06:52:39 PM: > > > Re: [v3 RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 09:20:38PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote: > > > > > Krishna Kumar2/India/IBM@IBMIN wrote on 10/20/2010 02:24:52 PM: > > > > > > > > Any feedback, comments, objections, issues or bugs about the > > > > patches? Please let me know if something needs to be done. > > > > > > > > Some more test results: > > > > _____________________________________________________ > > > > Host->Guest BW (numtxqs=2) > > > > # BW% CPU% RCPU% SD% RSD% > > > > _____________________________________________________ > > > > > > I think we discussed the need for external to guest testing > > > over 10G. For large messages we should not see any change > > > but you should be able to get better numbers for small messages > > > assuming a MQ NIC card. > > > > I had to make a few changes to qemu (and a minor change in macvtap > > driver) to get multiple TXQ support using macvtap working. The NIC > > is a ixgbe card. > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > Org vs New (I/O: 512 bytes, #numtxqs=2, #vhosts=3) > > # BW1 BW2 (%) SD1 SD2 (%) RSD1 RSD2 (%) > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > 1 14367 13142 (-8.5) 56 62 (10.7) 8 8 (0) > > 2 3652 3855 (5.5) 37 35 (-5.4) 7 6 (-14.2) > > 4 12529 12059 (-3.7) 65 77 (18.4) 35 35 (0) > > 8 13912 14668 (5.4) 288 332 (15.2) 175 184 (5.1) > > 16 13433 14455 (7.6) 1218 1321 (8.4) 920 943 (2.5) > > 24 12750 13477 (5.7) 2876 2985 (3.7) 2514 2348 (-6.6) > > 32 11729 12632 (7.6) 5299 5332 (.6) 4934 4497 (-8.8) > > 40 11061 11923 (7.7) 8482 8364 (-1.3) 8374 7495 (-10.4) > > 48 10624 11267 (6.0) 12329 12258 (-.5) 12762 11538 (-9.5) > > 64 10524 10596 (.6) 21689 22859 (5.3) 23626 22403 (-5.1) > > 80 9856 10284 (4.3) 35769 36313 (1.5) 39932 36419 (-8.7) > > 96 9691 10075 (3.9) 52357 52259 (-.1) 58676 53463 (-8.8) > > 128 9351 9794 (4.7) 114707 94275 (-17.8) 114050 97337 (-14.6) > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > Avg: BW: (3.3) SD: (-7.3) RSD: (-11.0) > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > Org vs New (I/O: 1K, #numtxqs=8, #vhosts=5) > > # BW1 BW2 (%) SD1 SD2 (%) RSD1 RSD2 (%) > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > 1 16509 15985 (-3.1) 45 47 (4.4) 7 7 (0) > > 2 6963 4499 (-35.3) 17 51 (200.0) 7 7 (0) > > 4 12932 11080 (-14.3) 49 74 (51.0) 35 35 (0) > > 8 13878 14095 (1.5) 223 292 (30.9) 175 181 (3.4) > > 16 13440 13698 (1.9) 980 1131 (15.4) 926 942 (1.7) > > 24 12680 12927 (1.9) 2387 2463 (3.1) 2526 2342 (-7.2) > > 32 11714 12261 (4.6) 4506 4486 (-.4) 4941 4463 (-9.6) > > 40 11059 11651 (5.3) 7244 7081 (-2.2) 8349 7437 (-10.9) > > 48 10580 11095 (4.8) 10811 10500 (-2.8) 12809 11403 (-10.9) > > 64 10569 10566 (0) 19194 19270 (.3) 23648 21717 (-8.1) > > 80 9827 10753 (9.4) 31668 29425 (-7.0) 39991 33824 (-15.4) > > 96 10043 10150 (1.0) 45352 44227 (-2.4) 57766 51131 (-11.4) > > 128 9360 9979 (6.6) 92058 79198 (-13.9) 114381 92873 (-18.8) > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > Avg: BW: (-.5) SD: (-7.5) RSD: (-14.7) > > > > Is there anything else you would like me to test/change, or shall > > I submit the next version (with the above macvtap changes)? > > > > Thanks, > > > > - KK > > Something strange here, right? > 1. You are consistently getting >10G/s here, and even with a single stream? Sorry, I should have mentioned this though I had stated in my earlier mails. Each test result has two iterations, each of 60 seconds, except when #netperfs is 1 for which I do 10 iteration (sum across 10 iterations). I started doing many more iterations for 1 netperf after finding the issue earlier with single stream. So the BW is only 4.5-7 Gbps. > 2. With 2 streams, is where we get < 10G/s originally. Instead of > doubling that we get a marginal improvement with 2 queues and > about 30% worse with 1 queue. (doubling happens consistently for guest -> host, but never for remote host) I tried 512/txqs=2 and 1024/txqs=8 to get a varied testing scenario. In first case, there is a slight improvement in BW and good reduction in SD. In the second case, only SD improves (though BW drops for 2 stream for some reason). In both cases, BW and SD improves as the number of sessions increase. > Is your card MQ? Yes, the card is MQ. ixgbe 10g card. 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
