On 2018年06月27日 23:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:24:43PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2018年06月26日 13:17, xiangxia.m.yue@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@xxxxxxxxx>
This patch improves the guest receive performance from
host. On the handle_tx side, we poll the sock receive
queue at the same time. handle_rx do that in the same way.
For avoiding deadlock, change the code to lock the vq one
by one and use the VHOST_NET_VQ_XX as a subclass for
mutex_lock_nested. With the patch, qemu can set differently
the busyloop_timeout for rx or tx queue.
We set the poll-us=100us and use the iperf3 to test
its throughput. The iperf3 command is shown as below.
on the guest:
iperf3 -s -D
on the host:
iperf3 -c 192.168.1.100 -i 1 -P 10 -t 10 -M 1400
* With the patch: 23.1 Gbits/sec
* Without the patch: 12.7 Gbits/sec
Signed-off-by: Tonghao Zhang <zhangtonghao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks a lot for the patch. Looks good generally, but please split this big
patch into separate ones like:
patch 1: lock vqs one by one
patch 2: replace magic number of lock annotation
patch 3: factor out generic busy polling logic to vhost_net_busy_poll()
patch 4: add rx busy polling in tx path.
And please cc Michael in v3.
Thanks
Pls include host CPU utilization numbers. You can get them e.g. using
vmstat. I suspect we also want the polling controllable e.g. through
an ioctl.
I believe we had an ioctl for setting timeout? Or you want another kind
of controlling.
Thanks
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
