On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 6:29 PM Michael S. Tsirkin [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 06:11:21PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 5:55 PM Michael S. Tsirkin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:07:57PM +0200, 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

OK that is testpmd on guest, right? And vhost-net on the host?

Hi Michael.

No, sorry, as described in
http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/virtio_user_as_exceptional_path.html.
But I could add to test it in the guest too.

These kinds of raw packets "bursts" do not show performance
differences, but I could test deeper if you think it would be worth
it.

Oh ok, so this is without guest, with virtio-user.
It might be worth checking dpdk within guest too just
as another data point.

Ok, I will do it!

quoted

quoted

quoted

* If I forward packets between two vhost-net interfaces in the guest
using a linux bridge in the host:

And here I guess you mean virtio-net in the guest kernel?

Yes, sorry: Two virtio-net interfaces connected with a linux bridge in
the host. More precisely:
* Adding one of the interfaces to another namespace, assigning it an
IP, and starting netserver there.
* Assign another IP in the range manually to the other virtual net
interface, and start the desired test there.

If you think it would be better to perform then differently please let me know.

Not sure why you bother with namespaces since you said you are
using L2 bridging. I guess it's unimportant.

Sorry, I think I should have provided more context about that.

The only reason to use namespaces is to force the traffic of these
netperf tests to go through the external bridge. To test netperf
different possibilities than the testpmd (or pktgen or others "blast
of frames unconditionally" tests).

This way, I make sure that is the same version of everything in the
guest, and is a little bit easier to manage cpu affinity, start and
stop testing...

I could use a different VM for sending and receiving, but I find this
way a faster one and it should not introduce a lot of noise. I can
test with two VM if you think that this use of network namespace
introduces too much noise.

Thanks!

quoted

quoted

quoted

  - 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

OK so it seems plausible that we still have a bug where an interrupt
is delayed. That is the main difference between pmd and virtio.
Let's try disabling event index, and see what happens - that's
the trickiest part of interrupts.

Got it, will get back with the results.

Thank you very much!

quoted

quoted

  - TCP_STREAM goes from ~10.7 gbps to ~7Gbps
  - TCP_RR from 6223.64 transactions/sec to 5739.44