On Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:16:11 am Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2011 09:34:22 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:23:42AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:54:58 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 0
On Thursday, March 10, 2011 09:34:22 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:23:42AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:54:58 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 05:25:11PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > > > As for which CPU the in
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:23:42AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:54:58 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 05:25:11PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > > As for which CPU the interrupt gets pinned to, that doesn't matter - see
> > > below.
> >
> > So
On Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:54:58 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 05:25:11PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > As for which CPU the interrupt gets pinned to, that doesn't matter - see
> > below.
>
> So what hurts us the most is that the IRQ jumps between the VCPUs?
Yes, it
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 05:25:11PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> As for which CPU the interrupt gets pinned to, that doesn't matter - see
> below.
So what hurts us the most is that the IRQ jumps between the VCPUs?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a m
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 16:59 -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
> In theory, for lots of TCP_RR streams, the guest should be able to keep
> sending xmit skbs to send vq, so vhost should be able to disable
> notification most of the time, then number of guest exits should be
> significantly reduced? Why we saw
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 23:56 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Txn Rate: 153,696.59 Txn/Sec, Pkt Rate: 305,358 Pkgs/Sec
> > Exits: 62,603.37 Exits/Sec
> > TxCPU: 3.73% RxCPU: 98.52%
> > Virtio1-input Interrupts/Sec (CPU0/CPU1): 11,564/0
> > Virtio1-output Interrupts/Sec (CPU0/CPU1): 0
On Wednesday, March 09, 2011 03:56:15 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 02:11:07PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > Here are the results again with the addition of the interrupt rate that
> > occurred on the guest virtio_net device:
> >
> > Here is the KVM baseline (average of s
On Wednesday, March 09, 2011 04:45:12 pm Shirley Ma wrote:
> Hello Tom,
>
> Do you also have Rusty's virtio stat patch results for both send queue
> and recv queue to share here?
Let me see what I can do about getting the data extracted, averaged and in a
form that I can put in an email.
>
> T
On Wednesday, March 09, 2011 10:09:26 am Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 09, 2011 01:15:58 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:31:41PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > > We've been doing some more experimenting with the small packet network
> > > performance problem
Hello Tom,
Do you also have Rusty's virtio stat patch results for both send queue
and recv queue to share here?
Thanks
Shirley
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/ma
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 02:11:07PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> Here are the results again with the addition of the interrupt rate that
> occurred on the guest virtio_net device:
>
> Here is the KVM baseline (average of six runs):
> Txn Rate: 87,070.34 Txn/Sec, Pkt Rate: 172,992 Pkts/Sec
> Ex
Here are the results again with the addition of the interrupt rate that
occurred on the guest virtio_net device:
Here is the KVM baseline (average of six runs):
Txn Rate: 87,070.34 Txn/Sec, Pkt Rate: 172,992 Pkts/Sec
Exits: 148,444.58 Exits/Sec
TxCPU: 2.40% RxCPU: 99.35%
Virtio1-input I
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 19:16 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:51:33AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 10:09 -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > > > > Vhost is receiving a lot of notifications for packets that are
> to
> > > be
> > > > > transmitted (over 60
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:51:33AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 10:09 -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > > > Vhost is receiving a lot of notifications for packets that are to
> > be
> > > > transmitted (over 60% of the packets generate a kick_notify).
>
> This is guest TX send not
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 10:09 -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > > Vhost is receiving a lot of notifications for packets that are to
> be
> > > transmitted (over 60% of the packets generate a kick_notify).
This is guest TX send notification when vhost enables notification.
In TCP_STREAM test, vhost ex
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 18:32 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> I think your issues are with TX overrun.
> Besides delaying IRQ on TX, I don't have many ideas.
>
> The one interesting thing is that you see better speed
> if you drop packets. netdev crowd says this should not happen,
> so could be a
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:25:34AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 18:10 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > index 82dba5a..4477b9a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 10:09:26AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 09, 2011 01:15:58 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:31:41PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > > We've been doing some more experimenting with the small packet network
> > > performance problem
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 18:10 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> index 82dba5a..4477b9a 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> @@ -514,11 +514,11 @@ static unsigned int free_old_xmit_skbs(struct
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 10:09 -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> >
> > > This spread out the kick_notify but still resulted in alot of
> them. I
> > > decided to build on the delayed Tx buffer freeing and code up an
> > > "ethtool" like coalescing patch in order to delay the kick_notify
> until
> > > the
On Wednesday, March 09, 2011 01:17:44 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:31:41PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > I used the uperf tool to do this after verifying the results against
> > netperf. Uperf allows the specification of the number of connections as
> > a parameter in
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 07:45:43AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 09:15 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > index 82dba5a..ebe3337 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> >
On Wednesday, March 09, 2011 01:15:58 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:31:41PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > We've been doing some more experimenting with the small packet network
> > performance problem in KVM. I have a different setup than what Steve D.
> > was using so
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 09:15 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> index 82dba5a..ebe3337 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> @@ -514,11 +514,11 @@ static unsigned int free_old_xmit_skbs(struct
> v
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:31:41PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> I used the uperf tool to do this after verifying the results against netperf.
>
> Uperf allows the specification of the number of connections as a parameter in
> an XML file as opposed to launching, in this case, 100 separate insta
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:31:41PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> We've been doing some more experimenting with the small packet network
> performance problem in KVM. I have a different setup than what Steve D. was
> using so I re-baselined things on the kvm.git kernel on both the host and
> gues
Hi Tom,
My two cents. Please look for [Chaks]
>
>Comparing the transmit path to the receive path, the guest disables
>notifications after the first kick and vhost re-enables notifications
>after
>completing processing of the tx ring. Can a similar thing be done for
>the
>receive path? Once vhos
We've been doing some more experimenting with the small packet network
performance problem in KVM. I have a different setup than what Steve D. was
using so I re-baselined things on the kvm.git kernel on both the host and
guest with a 10GbE adapter. I also made use of the virtio-stats patch.
T
29 matches
Mail list logo
