Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote on 02/23/2011 09:25:34 PM:
Sure, will get a build/test on latest bits and send in 1-2 days.
The TX-only patch helped the guest TX path but didn't help
host-guest much (as tested using TCP_MAERTS from the guest).
But with the TX+RX patch,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:18:36PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote on 02/23/2011 12:09:15 PM:
Hi Michael,
Yes. Michael Tsirkin had wanted to see how the MQ RX patch
would look like, so I was in the process of getting the two
working together.
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:52:09AM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au wrote on 02/22/2011 01:17:09 PM:
Hi Simon,
I have a few questions about the results below:
1. Are the (%) comparisons between non-mq and mq virtio?
Yes - mainline kernel with
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 02:24:52PM +0530, Krishna Kumar wrote:
Following set of patches implement transmit MQ in virtio-net. Also
included is the user qemu changes. MQ is disabled by default unless
qemu specifies it.
Hi Krishna,
I have a few questions about the results below:
1. Are the
Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au wrote on 02/22/2011 01:17:09 PM:
Hi Simon,
I have a few questions about the results below:
1. Are the (%) comparisons between non-mq and mq virtio?
Yes - mainline kernel with transmit-only MQ patch.
2. Was UDP or TCP used?
TCP. I had done some initial
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:52:09AM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au wrote on 02/22/2011 01:17:09 PM:
Hi Simon,
I have a few questions about the results below:
1. Are the (%) comparisons between non-mq and mq virtio?
Yes - mainline kernel with
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote on 02/23/2011 12:09:15 PM:
Hi Michael,
Yes. Michael Tsirkin had wanted to see how the MQ RX patch
would look like, so I was in the process of getting the two
working together. The patch is ready and is being tested.
Should I send a RFC patch at
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:54:57PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote on 11/09/2010 09:03:25 PM:
Something strange here, right?
1. You are consistently getting 10G/s here, and even with a single
stream?
Sorry, I should have mentioned this
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 08:58:44PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote on 11/09/2010 06:52:39 PM:
Re: [v3 RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 09:20:38PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Krishna Kumar2/India/i
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:08:21AM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote on 10/26/2010 02:27:09 PM:
Re: [v3 RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 09:20:38PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Krishna Kumar2/India/i...@ibmin
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote on 11/09/2010 09:03:25 PM:
Something strange here, right?
1. You are consistently getting 10G/s here, and even with a single
stream?
Sorry, I should have mentioned this though I had stated in my
earlier mails. Each test result has two
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote on 10/26/2010 02:27:09 PM:
Re: [v3 RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 09:20:38PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Krishna Kumar2/India/i...@ibmin wrote on 10/20/2010 02:24:52 PM:
Any feedback, comments, objections
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:48:57PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Krishna Kumar2/India/IBM wrote on 10/28/2010 10:44:14 AM:
Results for UDP BW tests (unidirectional, sum across
3 iterations, each iteration of 45 seconds, default
netperf, vhosts bound to cpus 0-3; no other
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:48:57PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Krishna Kumar2/India/IBM wrote on 10/28/2010 10:44:14 AM:
Results for UDP BW tests (unidirectional, sum across
3 iterations, each iteration of 45 seconds, default
netperf, vhosts bound to cpus 0-3; no other
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:26 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:48:57PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Krishna Kumar2/India/IBM wrote on 10/28/2010 10:44:14 AM:
In practice users are very unlikely to pin threads to CPUs.
I may be misunderstanding what
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
I think we discussed the need for external to guest testing
over 10G. For large messages we should not see any change
but you should be able to get better numbers for small messages
assuming a MQ NIC card.
For external host, there is a
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:42:05AM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
I think we discussed the need for external to guest testing
over 10G. For large messages we should not see any change
but you should be able to get better numbers for small messages
Krishna Kumar2/India/IBM wrote on 10/28/2010 10:44:14 AM:
Results for UDP BW tests (unidirectional, sum across
3 iterations, each iteration of 45 seconds, default
netperf, vhosts bound to cpus 0-3; no other tuning):
Is binding vhost threads to CPUs really required?
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote on 10/26/2010 04:39:13 PM:
(merging two posts into one)
I think we discussed the need for external to guest testing
over 10G. For large messages we should not see any change
but you should be able to get better numbers for small messages
assuming a MQ
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:44:14AM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote on 10/26/2010 04:39:13 PM:
(merging two posts into one)
I think we discussed the need for external to guest testing
over 10G. For large messages we should not see any change
but you
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 09:20:38PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Krishna Kumar2/India/i...@ibmin wrote on 10/20/2010 02:24:52 PM:
Any feedback, comments, objections, issues or bugs about the
patches? Please let me know if something needs to be done.
Some more test results:
Krishna Kumar2/India/IBM wrote on 10/26/2010 10:40:35 AM:
I am trying to wrap my head around kernel/user interface here.
E.g., will we need another incompatible change when we add multiple RX
queues?
Though I added a 'mq' option to qemu, there shouldn't be
any incompatibility between old
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 02:38:53PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Results for UDP BW tests (unidirectional, sum across
3 iterations, each iteration of 45 seconds, default
netperf, vhosts bound to cpus 0-3; no other tuning):
Is binding vhost threads to CPUs really required?
What happens if we let
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 02:38:53PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Results for UDP BW tests (unidirectional, sum across
3 iterations, each iteration of 45 seconds, default
netperf, vhosts bound to cpus 0-3; no other tuning):
Is binding vhost threads to
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 03:31:39PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 02:38:53PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
Results for UDP BW tests (unidirectional, sum across
3 iterations, each iteration of 45 seconds, default
netperf, vhosts
43.02 35.97 28.89 -.11-5.31
128 38.54 33.88 27.19 -4.79 -9.54
_
BW: 34.4% CPU/RCPU: 35.9%,27.8% SD/RSD: -4.1%,-9.3%
Thanks,
- KK
[v3 RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net
Following set of patches implement
%
Thanks,
- KK
[v3 RFC PATCH 0/4] Implement multiqueue virtio-net
Following set of patches implement transmit MQ in virtio-net. Also
included is the user qemu changes. MQ is disabled by default unless
qemu specifies it.
Changes from rev2
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote on 10/25/2010 09:47:18 PM:
Any feedback, comments, objections, issues or bugs about the
patches? Please let me know if something needs to be done.
I am trying to wrap my head around kernel/user interface here.
E.g., will we need another incompatible
Following set of patches implement transmit MQ in virtio-net. Also
included is the user qemu changes. MQ is disabled by default unless
qemu specifies it.
Changes from rev2:
--
1. Define (in virtio_net.h) the maximum send txqs; and use in
29 matches
Mail list logo
