On 2014/8/13 19:25, Nikolay Nikolaev wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Nikolay Nikolaev > <n.nikol...@virtualopensystems.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Nikolay Nikolaev >> <n.nikol...@virtualopensystems.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:41 AM, Li Liu <john.li...@huawei.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Is anyone there can tell the current status of vhost-net on kvm-arm? >>>> >>>> Half a year has passed from Isa Ansharullah asked this question: >>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm-arm/msg08152.html >>>> >>>> I have found two patches which have provided the kvm-arm support of >>>> eventfd and irqfd: >>>> >>>> 1) [RFC PATCH 0/4] ARM: KVM: Enable the ioeventfd capability of KVM on ARM >>>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-01/msg01770.html >>>> >>>> 2) [RFC,v3] ARM: KVM: add irqfd and irq routing support >>>> https://patches.linaro.org/32261/ >>>> >>>> And there's a rough patch for qemu to support eventfd from Ying-Shiuan Pan: >>>> >>>> [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] ioeventfd support for virtio-mmio >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-02/msg00715.html >>>> >>>> But there no any comments of this patch. And I can found nothing about qemu >>>> to support irqfd. Do I lost the track? >>>> >>>> If nobody try to fix it. We have a plan to complete it about virtio-mmio >>>> supporing irqfd and multiqueue. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> we at Virtual Open Systems did some work and tested vhost-net on ARM >>> back in March. >>> The setup was based on: >>> - host kernel with our ioeventfd patches: >>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm-arm/msg08413.html >>> >>> - qemu with the aforementioned patches from Ying-Shiuan Pan >>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-02/msg00715.html >>> >>> The testbed was ARM Chromebook with Exynos 5250, using a 1Gbps USB3 >>> Ethernet adapter connected to a 1Gbps switch. I can't find the actual >>> numbers but I remember that with multiple streams the gain was clearly >>> seen. Note that it used the minimum required ioventfd implementation >>> and not irqfd. >>> >>> I guess it is feasible to think that it all can be put together and >>> rebased + the recent irqfd work. One can achiev even better >>> performance (because of the irqfd). >>> >> >> Managed to replicate the setup with the old versions e used in March: >> >> Single stream from another machine to chromebook with 1Gbps USB3 >> Ethernet adapter. >> iperf -c <address> -P 1 -i 1 -p 5001 -f k -t 10 >> to HOST: 858316 Kbits/sec >> to GUEST: 761563 Kbits/sec > to GUEST vhost=off: 508150 Kbits/sec >> >> 10 parallel streams >> iperf -c <address> -P 10 -i 1 -p 5001 -f k -t 10 >> to HOST: 842420 Kbits/sec >> to GUEST: 625144 Kbits/sec > to GUEST vhost=off: 425276 Kbits/sec
I have tested the same cases on a Hisilicon board (Cortex-A15@1G) with Integrated 1Gbps Ethernet adapter. iperf -c <address> -P 1 -i 1 -p 5001 -f M -t 10 to HOST: 906 Mbits/sec to GUEST: 562 Mbits/sec to GUEST vhost=off: 340 Mbits/sec 10 parallel streams, the performance gets <10% plus: iperf -c <address> -P 10 -i 1 -p 5001 -f M -t 10 to HOST: 923 Mbits/sec to GUEST: 592 Mbits/sec to GUEST vhost=off: 364 Mbits/sec I't easy to see vhost-net brings great performance improvements, almost 50%+. Li. >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> kvmarm mailing list >>>> kvm...@lists.cs.columbia.edu >>>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm >>> >>> >>> regards, >>> Nikolay Nikolaev >>> Virtual Open Systems > > . >
