On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:41:24PM +0800, Qin Chuanyu wrote: > On 2014/1/28 18:33, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > >>>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! > > > because of spring festival of china, the test result would be given > two week later. > throughput would be test by netperf, and latency would be tested by > qperf. Is that OK? For testing - sounds good. Run vmstat in host to check host cpu utilization. Pls don't forget to address all issues raised in this thread and in the old one Eric mentioned: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/52963/ either address in code or address in commit log why it doesn't apply anymore. -- 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
