On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:19:02PM +0800, Qin Chuanyu wrote: > On 2014/1/28 17:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>I think it's okay - IIUC this way we are processing xmit directly > >>>instead of going through softirq. > >>>Was meaning to try this - I'm glad you are looking into this. > >>> > >>>Could you please check latency results? > >>> > >>netperf UDP_RR 512 > >>test model: VM->host->host > >> > >>modified before : 11108 > >>modified after : 11480 > >> > >>3% gained by this patch > >> > >> > >Nice. > >What about CPU utilization? > >It's trivially easy to speed up networking by > >burning up a lot of CPU so we must make sure it's > >not doing that. > >And I think we should see some tests with TCP as well, and > >try several message sizes. > > > > > Yes, by burning up more CPU we could get better performance easily. > So I have bond vhost thread and interrupt of nic on CPU1 while testing. > > modified before, the idle of CPU1 is 0%-1% while testing. > and after modify, the idle of CPU1 is 2%-3% while testing > > TCP also could gain from this, but pps is less than UDP, so I think > the improvement would be not so obviously. Still need to test this doesn't regress but overall looks convincing to me. Could you send a patch, accompanied by testing results for throughput latency and cpu utilization for tcp and udp with various message sizes? Thanks! -- MST -- 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
