On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:50:13 +0800, Amos Kong ak...@redhat.com wrote:
The format is broken in webpage, attached the result file.
it's also available here: http://amosk.info/download/rusty-fix-perf.txt
Thanks Amos.
Linus, please apply. Fixes virtio-mmio without breaking virtio_pci
performance.
On 12/12/11 13:12, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:06:53 +0800, Amos Kongak...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/12/11 06:27, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 14:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Forwarding some results by Amos, who run multiple netperf streams in
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 10:19 +0800, Amos Kong wrote:
I tested with the same environment and scenarios.
tested one scenarios for three times and compute the average for more
precision.
Thanks, Amos
- compare results ---
Mon Dec 19 09:51:09 2011
1 -
On 19/12/11 10:19, Amos Kong wrote:
On 12/12/11 13:12, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:06:53 +0800, Amos Kongak...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/12/11 06:27, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 14:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Forwarding some results by Amos, who
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:56:36 +0800, Amos Kong ak...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/12/2011 01:12 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:06:53 +0800, Amos Kong ak...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/12/11 06:27, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 14:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin
On 19/12/11 10:41, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 10:19 +0800, Amos Kong wrote:
I tested with the same environment and scenarios.
tested one scenarios for three times and compute the average for more
precision.
Thanks, Amos
- compare results ---
Mon Dec
On 12/12/2011 01:12 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:06:53 +0800, Amos Kong ak...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/12/11 06:27, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 14:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Forwarding some results by Amos, who run multiple netperf streams in
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 03:44:36PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:09:44 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 14:31 +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
A trivial, albeit sub-optimal, solution would be to simply revert
commit
On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 14:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Forwarding some results by Amos, who run multiple netperf streams in
parallel, from an external box to the guest. TCP_STREAM results were
noisy. This could be due to buffering done by TCP, where packet size
varies even as message
On 12/12/11 06:27, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 14:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Forwarding some results by Amos, who run multiple netperf streams in
parallel, from an external box to the guest. TCP_STREAM results were
noisy. This could be due to buffering done
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:06:53 +0800, Amos Kong ak...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/12/11 06:27, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 14:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Forwarding some results by Amos, who run multiple netperf streams in
parallel, from an external box to the
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:09:44 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 14:31 +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
A trivial, albeit sub-optimal, solution would be to simply revert
commit d57ed95 virtio: use smp_XX barriers on SMP. Obviously, though,
that's
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 14:31 +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
Virtio is using memory barriers to control the ordering of
references to the vrings on SMP systems. When the guest is compiled
with SMP support, virtio is only using SMP barriers in order to
avoid incurring the overhead involved with
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
Have you measured the impact of using normal barriers (non-SMP ones)
like we use on normal HW drivers unconditionally ?
IE. If the difference is small enough I'd say just go for it and avoid
the bloat.
I
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:58:59PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:13:07 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
For x86, stores into memory are ordered. So I think that yes, smp_XXX
can be selected at compile time.
So let's forget the virtio strangeness for
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 08:14:26AM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
For x86, stores into memory are ordered. So I think that yes, smp_XXX
can be selected at compile time.
But then you can't use the same kernel image for
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:12:37 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:58:59PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:13:07 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
For x86, stores into memory are ordered. So I think that yes, smp_XXX
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
This mentions iommu - is there a need to use dma api to let
the firmware acess the rings? Or does it have access to all
of memory?
IOMMU may or may not be used, it really depends on the hardware (my
personal SoC does
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:57:19PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
Is an extra branch faster or slower than reverting d57ed95?
Sorry, unfortunately I have no way to measure this, as I don't have
any virtualization/x86
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 01:55:53PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:57:19PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
Is an extra branch faster or slower than reverting d57ed95?
Sorry, unfortunately I
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 01:45:05PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
So you put virtio rings in MMIO memory?
I'll be precise: the vrings are created in non-cacheable memory, which
both processors have access to.
Could you please give a couple of examples of breakage?
Sure. Basically, the
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
I see. And this happens because the ARM processor reorders
memory writes
Yes.
And in an SMP configuration, writes are somehow not reordered?
They are, but then the smp memory barriers are enough to control these
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 06:04:56PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
I see. And this happens because the ARM processor reorders
memory writes
Yes.
And in an SMP configuration, writes are somehow not reordered?
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
How are the rings mapped? normal memory, right?
No, device memory.
We allocate them with plan alloc_pages_exact in virtio_pci.c ...
I'm not using virtio_pci.c; remoteproc is allocating the rings using
the DMA API.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
make headers_install
make -C tools/virtio/
(you'll need an empty stub for tools/virtio/linux/module.h,
I just sent a patch to add that)
sudo insmod tools/virtio/vhost_test/vhost_test.ko
./tools/virtio/virtio_test
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:43:08AM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
make headers_install
make -C tools/virtio/
(you'll need an empty stub for tools/virtio/linux/module.h,
I just sent a patch to add that)
sudo insmod
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
How are the rings mapped? normal memory, right?
No, device memory.
Ok, I have more info.
Originally remoteproc was mapping the rings using
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 01:27:10AM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
How are the rings mapped? normal memory, right?
No, device memory.
Ok, I
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:13:07 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
For x86, stores into memory are ordered. So I think that yes, smp_XXX
can be selected at compile time.
So let's forget the virtio strangeness for a minute,
Hmm, we got away with light barriers because we knew we
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
For x86, stores into memory are ordered. So I think that yes, smp_XXX
can be selected at compile time.
But then you can't use the same kernel image for both scenarios.
It won't take long until people will use virtio on
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
And these accesses need to be ordered with DSB? Or DMB?
DMB (i.e. smp barriers) should be enough within Normal memory
accesses, though the other issues that were reported to me are a bit
concerning. I'm still trying to get
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
Hmm, we got away with light barriers because we knew we were not
*really* talking to a device. But now with virtio-mmio, turns out we
are :)
I'm really tempted to revert d57ed95 for 3.2, and we can revisit this
Virtio is using memory barriers to control the ordering of
references to the vrings on SMP systems. When the guest is compiled
with SMP support, virtio is only using SMP barriers in order to
avoid incurring the overhead involved with mandatory barriers.
Lately, though, virtio is being
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 02:31:26PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
Virtio is using memory barriers to control the ordering of
references to the vrings on SMP systems. When the guest is compiled
with SMP support, virtio is only using SMP barriers in order to
avoid incurring the overhead involved
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 02:31:26PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
Virtio is using memory barriers to control the ordering of
references to the vrings on SMP systems. When the guest is compiled
with SMP support, virtio is
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:57:19PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 02:31:26PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
Virtio is using memory barriers to control the ordering of
references to the vrings on
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:57:19PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
Is an extra branch faster or slower than reverting d57ed95?
Sorry, unfortunately I have no way to measure this, as I don't have
any virtualization/x86 setup. I'm developing on ARM SoCs, where
virtualization hardware is coming,
37 matches
Mail list logo
