On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 06:47:15PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 11:52:46AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > I simply love it that you have analysed the individual impact of > > each patch! Great job! > > Thanks! I followed Stefan's suggestions! > > > > > For comparison's sake, it could be IMHO benefitial to add a column > > with virtio-net+vhost-net performance. > > > > This will both give us an idea about whether the vsock layer introduces > > inefficiencies, and whether the virtio-net idea has merit. > > > > Sure, I already did TCP tests on virtio-net + vhost, starting qemu in > this way: > $ qemu-system-x86_64 ... \ > -netdev tap,id=net0,vhost=on,ifname=tap0,script=no,downscript=no \ > -device virtio-net-pci,netdev=net0 > > I did also a test using TCP_NODELAY, just to be fair, because VSOCK > doesn't implement something like this. Why not? > In both cases I set the MTU to the maximum allowed (65520). > > VSOCK TCP + virtio-net + vhost > host -> guest [Gbps] host -> guest [Gbps] > pkt_size before opt. patch 1 patches 2+3 patch 4 TCP_NODELAY > 64 0.060 0.102 0.102 0.096 0.16 0.15 > 256 0.22 0.40 0.40 0.36 0.32 0.57 > 512 0.42 0.82 0.85 0.74 1.2 1.2 > 1K 0.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 2.1 2.1 > 2K 1.5 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.5 3.4 > 4K 2.5 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.5 5.3 > 8K 3.9 8.4 8.6 8.8 8.0 7.9 > 16K 6.6 11.1 11.3 12.8 9.8 10.2 > 32K 9.9 15.8 15.8 18.1 11.8 10.7 > 64K 13.5 17.4 17.7 21.4 11.4 11.3 > 128K 17.9 19.0 19.0 23.6 11.2 11.0 > 256K 18.0 19.4 19.8 24.4 11.1 11.0 > 512K 18.4 19.6 20.1 25.3 10.1 10.7 > > For small packet size (< 4K) I think we should implement some kind of > batching/merging, that could be for free if we use virtio-net as a transport. > > Note: Maybe I have something miss configured because TCP on virtio-net > for host -> guest case doesn't exceed 11 Gbps. > > VSOCK TCP + virtio-net + vhost > guest -> host [Gbps] guest -> host [Gbps] > pkt_size before opt. patch 1 patches 2+3 TCP_NODELAY > 64 0.088 0.100 0.101 0.24 0.24 > 256 0.35 0.36 0.41 0.36 1.03 > 512 0.70 0.74 0.73 0.69 1.6 > 1K 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.1 3.0 > 2K 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.1 5.5 > 4K 4.3 4.3 4.5 3.8 8.8 > 8K 7.3 7.4 7.6 6.6 20.0 > 16K 9.2 9.6 11.1 12.3 29.4 > 32K 8.3 8.9 18.1 19.3 28.2 > 64K 8.3 8.9 25.4 20.6 28.7 > 128K 7.2 8.7 26.7 23.1 27.9 > 256K 7.7 8.4 24.9 28.5 29.4 > 512K 7.7 8.5 25.0 28.3 29.3 > > For guest -> host I think is important the TCP_NODELAY test, because TCP > buffering increases a lot the throughput. > > > One other comment: it makes sense to test with disabling smap > > mitigations (boot host and guest with nosmap). No problem with also > > testing the default smap path, but I think you will discover that the > > performance impact of smap hardening being enabled is often severe for > > such benchmarks. > > Thanks for this valuable suggestion, I'll redo all the tests with nosmap! > > Cheers, > Stefano _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
