On 11/05/2014 03:12 AM, Shannon Zhao wrote: > Hi Rémy, > > On 2014/11/5 16:26, GAUGUEY Rémy 228890 wrote: >> Hi Shannon, >> >>> Type of backend bandwith(GBytes/sec) >>> virtio-net 0.66 >>> vhost-net 1.49 >>> vhost-net with irqfd 2.01 >>> >>> Test cmd: ./iperf -c 192.168.0.2 -P 1 -i 10 -p 5001 -f G -t 60 >> Impressive results ! >> Could you please detail your setup ? which platform are you using and which GbE controller ? > Sorry for not telling the test scenario. This test scenario is from Host to Guest. It just > compare the performance of different backends. I did this test on ARM64 platform. > > The setup was based on: > 1)on host kvm-arm should support ioeventfd and irqfd > The irqfd patch is from Eric "ARM: KVM: add irqfd support". > http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm-arm/msg11014.html > > The ioeventfd patch is reworked by me from Antonios. > http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm-arm/msg08413.html > > 2)qemu should enable ioeventfd support for virtio-mmio > This patch is refer to Ying-Shiuan Pan and reworked for new qemu branch. > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-11/msg00594.html > > 3)qemu should enable multiple irqs for virtio-mmio > This patch isn't sent to qemu maillist as we want to check whether this is the right direction. > If you want to test, I'll send it to you. I'm not a maintainer so my opinion isn't worth a lot here, but this seems like the right direction to me. I'd like to see the qemu patch (do mention the dependency on the kernel patch) on the qemu-devel mailing list. I think these numbers also support some of the prereqs listed above that have gone through several iterations getting queued up for 3.19. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
