On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:07 AM Jason Wang [off-list ref] wrote:

On 2020/6/20 上午2:07, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:28 PM Eugenio Perez Martin
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 5:22 PM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:34:19AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

quoted

As testing shows no performance change, switch to that now.

What kind of testing? 100GiB? Low latency?

Hi Konrad.

I tested this version of the patch:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/13/42

It was tested for throughput with DPDK's testpmd (as described in
http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/virtio_user_as_exceptional_path.html)
and kernel pktgen. No latency tests were performed by me. Maybe it is
interesting to perform a latency test or just a different set of tests
over a recent version.

Thanks!

I have repeated the tests with v9, and results are a little bit different:
* If I test opening it with testpmd, I see no change between versions
* If I forward packets between two vhost-net interfaces in the guest
using a linux bridge in the host:
   - netperf UDP_STREAM shows a performance increase of 1.8, almost
doubling performance. This gets lower as frame size increase.
   - rests of the test goes noticeably worse: UDP_RR goes from ~6347
transactions/sec to 5830
   - TCP_STREAM goes from ~10.7 gbps to ~7Gbps

Which direction did you mean here? Guest TX or RX?

Hi Jason.

For both I created a linux bridge in the host, attach two guest
interfaces with vhost-net, and make the netperf run on them.

quoted

   - TCP_RR from 6223.64 transactions/sec to 5739.44

Perf diff might help. I think we can start from the RR result which
should be easier. Maybe you can test it for each patch then you may see
which patch is the source of the regression.

Ok, I will look for differences.

Thanks!

Thanks