quoted

This case should be quite similar with pkgten, if you got improvement with
pktgen, usually it was also the same for UDP, could you please try to disable
tso, gso, gro, ufo on all host tap devices and guest virtio-net devices? Currently
the most significant tests would be like this AFAICT:

Host->VM     4.12    4.13
 TCP:
 UDP:
pktgen:

Don't want to bother you too much, so maybe 4.12 & 4.13 without Jason's patch should
work since we have seen positive number for that, you can also temporarily skip
net-next as well.

Here are the requested numbers, averaged over numerous runs --  guest is
4GB+1vcpu, host uperf/pktgen bound to 1 host CPU + qemu and vhost thread
pinned to other unique host CPUs.  tso, gso, gro, ufo disabled on host
taps / guest virtio-net devs as requested:

Host->VM	4.12		4.13
TCP:		9.92Gb/s	6.44Gb/s
UDP:		5.77Gb/s	6.63Gb/s
pktgen:		1572403pps	1904265pps

UDP/pktgen both show improvement from 4.12->4.13.  More interesting,
however, is that I am seeing the TCP regression for the first time from
host->VM.  I wonder if the combination of CPU binding + disabling of one
or more of tso/gso/gro/ufo is related.

quoted

If you see UDP and pktgen are aligned, then it might be helpful to continue
the other two cases, otherwise we fail in the first place.

I continued running many iterations of these tests between 4.12 and
4.13..  My throughput findings can be summarized as:

VM->VM case:
UDP:  roughly equivalent
TCP:  Consistent regression (5-10%)

VM->Host
Both UDP and TCP traffic are roughly equivalent.

Host->VM
UDP+pktgen: improvement (5-10%), but inconsistent
TCP: Consistent regression (25-30%)

Host->VM UDP and pktgen seemed to show improvement in some runs, and in
others seemed to mirror 4.12-level performance.

The TCP regression for VM->VM is no surprise, we started with that.
It's still consistent, but smaller in this specific environment.

The TCP regression in Host->VM is interesting because I wasn't seeing it
consistently before binding CPUs + disabling tso/gso/gro/ufo.  Also
interesting because of how large it is -- By any chance can you see this
regression on x86 with the same configuration?