Hi, William
I used OVS DPDK to test it, you shouldn't add tap interface to ovs DPDK bridge if you use vdev to add tap, virtio_user is just for it, but that won't use this receive function to receive packets. At 2019-12-17 02:55:50, "William Tu" <u9012...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 02:09:24AM -0500, yang_y...@163.com wrote: >> From: Yi Yang <yangy...@inspur.com> >> >> Current netdev_linux_rxq_recv_tap and netdev_linux_rxq_recv_sock >> just receive single packet, that is very inefficient, per my test >> case which adds two tap ports or veth ports into OVS bridge >> (datapath_type=netdev) and use iperf3 to do performance test >> between two ports (they are set into different network name space). >> >> The result is as below: >> >> tap: 295 Mbits/sec >> veth: 207 Mbits/sec >> >> After I change netdev_linux_rxq_recv_tap and >> netdev_linux_rxq_recv_sock to use batch process, the performance >> is boosted by about 7 times, here is the result: >> >> tap: 1.96 Gbits/sec >> veth: 1.47 Gbits/sec >> >> Undoubtedly this is a huge improvement although it can't match >> OVS kernel datapath yet. >> >> FYI: here is thr result for OVS kernel datapath: >> >> tap: 37.2 Gbits/sec >> veth: 36.3 Gbits/sec >> >> Note: performance result is highly related with your test machine >> , you shouldn't expect the same results on your test machine. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yi Yang <yangy...@inspur.com> > >Hi Yi Yang, > >Are you testing this using OVS-DPDK? >If you're using OVS-DPDK, then you should use DPDK's vdev to >open and attach tap/veth device to OVS. I think you'll see much >better performance. > >The performance issue you pointed out only happens when using >userspace datapath without DPDK library, where afxdp is used. >I'm still looking for a better solutions for faster interface >for veth (af_packet) and tap. > >Thanks >William _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
