On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 18:01 -0700, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This gives small but noticeable rx performance improvement (2-3%) > > and will allow exploiting future napi improvement. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Worked in my tests, though the performance win was in the noise (+0.6% > - +1% bandwidth). > What tests did you see a 2-3% win on? I'm doing net2VM tests (i.e. the traffic generator is on a different host) with guest tuned a bit for performance. i.e. cpu pinning, no iptables, no dhclient (yes, that makes a big difference: http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2013/10/29/5) > Do you think its worth modifying add_recvbuf_small() to use > napi_alloc_skb() when called from > Rx NAPI (virtnet_receive)? Oops, I missed that invocation. Probably that path is not hit in my test. I think it should be really worthy. I'll send a v2. The important thing, more than the current improvement, is allowing the virtio_net driver to leverage future napi allocation improvement (i.e. bulk alloc: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg367568.html) which should be a real win. Paolo _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
