Re: [PATCH 0/3] [RFC] Implement multiqueue (RX & TX) virtio-net
Andrew Theurer wrote on 03/04/2011 12:31:24 AM: Hi Andrew, > > ___ > > TCP: Guest -> Local Host (TCP_STREAM) > > TCP: Local Host -> Guest (TCP_MAERTS) > > UDP: Local Host -> Guest (UDP_STREAM) > > > Any reason why the tests don't include a guest-to-guest on same host, or > on different hosts? Seems like those would be a lot more common that > guest-to/from-localhost. This was missing in my test plan, but good point. I will run these tests also and send the results soon. Thanks, - KK -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 0/3] [RFC] Implement multiqueue (RX & TX) virtio-net
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 12:04 +0530, Krishna Kumar wrote:
> This patch series is a continuation of an earlier one that
> implemented guest MQ TX functionality. This new patchset
> implements both RX and TX MQ. Qemu changes are not being
> included at this time solely to aid in easier review.
> Compatibility testing with old/new combinations of qemu/guest
> and vhost was done without any issues.
>
> Some early TCP/UDP test results are at the bottom of this
> post, I plan to submit more test results in the coming days.
>
> Please review and provide feedback on what can improve.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Signed-off-by: Krishna Kumar
> ---
>
>
> Test configuration:
> Host: 8 Intel Xeon, 8 GB memory
> Guest: 4 cpus, 2 GB memory
>
> Each test case runs for 60 secs, results below are average over
> two runs. Bandwidth numbers are in gbps. I have used default
> netperf, and no testing/system tuning other than taskset each
> vhost to 0xf (cpus 0-3). Comparison is testing original kernel
> vs new kernel with #txqs=8 ("#" refers to number of netperf
> sessions).
>
> ___
> TCP: Guest -> Local Host (TCP_STREAM)
> TCP: Local Host -> Guest (TCP_MAERTS)
> UDP: Local Host -> Guest (UDP_STREAM)
Any reason why the tests don't include a guest-to-guest on same host, or
on different hosts? Seems like those would be a lot more common that
guest-to/from-localhost.
Thanks,
-Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 0/3] [RFC] Implement multiqueue (RX & TX) virtio-net
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote on 02/28/2011 01:05:15 PM: > > This patch series is a continuation of an earlier one that > > implemented guest MQ TX functionality. This new patchset > > implements both RX and TX MQ. Qemu changes are not being > > included at this time solely to aid in easier review. > > Compatibility testing with old/new combinations of qemu/guest > > and vhost was done without any issues. > > > > Some early TCP/UDP test results are at the bottom of this > > post, I plan to submit more test results in the coming days. > > > > Please review and provide feedback on what can improve. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Signed-off-by: Krishna Kumar > > > To help testing, could you post the qemu changes separately please? Thanks Michael for your review and feedback. I will send the qemu changes and respond to your comments tomorrow. Thanks, - KK -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 0/3] [RFC] Implement multiqueue (RX & TX) virtio-net
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:04:27PM +0530, Krishna Kumar wrote:
> This patch series is a continuation of an earlier one that
> implemented guest MQ TX functionality. This new patchset
> implements both RX and TX MQ. Qemu changes are not being
> included at this time solely to aid in easier review.
> Compatibility testing with old/new combinations of qemu/guest
> and vhost was done without any issues.
>
> Some early TCP/UDP test results are at the bottom of this
> post, I plan to submit more test results in the coming days.
>
> Please review and provide feedback on what can improve.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Signed-off-by: Krishna Kumar
To help testing, could you post the qemu changes separately please?
> ---
>
>
> Test configuration:
> Host: 8 Intel Xeon, 8 GB memory
> Guest: 4 cpus, 2 GB memory
>
> Each test case runs for 60 secs, results below are average over
> two runs. Bandwidth numbers are in gbps. I have used default
> netperf, and no testing/system tuning other than taskset each
> vhost to 0xf (cpus 0-3). Comparison is testing original kernel
> vs new kernel with #txqs=8 ("#" refers to number of netperf
> sessions).
>
> ___
> TCP: Guest -> Local Host (TCP_STREAM)
> #BW1BW2 (%) SD1SD2 (%) RSD1RSD2 (%)
> ___
> 17190 7170 (-.2) 0 0 (0) 3 4 (33.3)
> 28774 11235 (28.0)3 3 (0) 16 14 (-12.5)
> 49753 15195 (55.7)17 21 (23.5) 65 59 (-9.2)
> 810224 18265 (78.6)71 115 (61.9) 251 240 (-4.3)
> 16 10749 18123 (68.6)277456 (64.6) 985 925 (-6.0)
> 32 11133 17351 (55.8)1132 1947 (71.9)39353831 (-2.6)
> 64 11223 17115 (52.4)4682 7836 (67.3)15949 15373 (-3.6)
> 128 11269 16986 (50.7)19783 31505 (59.2) 66799 61759 (-7.5)
> ___
> Summary: BW: 37.6 SD: 61.2 RSD: -6.5
>
>
> ___
> TCP: Local Host -> Guest (TCP_MAERTS)
> #BW1BW2 (%)SD1SD2 (%)RSD1RSD2 (%)
> ___
> 111490 10870 (-5.3) 0 0 (0) 2 2 (0)
> 210612 10554 (-.5)2 3 (50.0) 12 12 (0)
> 410047 14320 (42.5) 13 16 (23.0) 53 53 (0)
> 89273 15182 (63.7) 56 84 (50.0) 228 233 (2.1)
> 16 9291 15853 (70.6) 235390 (65.9) 934 965 (3.3)
> 32 9382 15741 (67.7) 9691823 (88.1)38684037 (4.3)
> 64 9270 14585 (57.3) 3966 8836 (122.7) 15415 17818 (15.5)
> 128 8997 14678 (63.1) 17024 36649 (115.2) 64933 72677 (11.9)
> ___
> SUM: BW: 24.8 SD: 114.6 RSD: 12.1
>
> __
> UDP: Local Host -> Guest (UDP_STREAM)
> # BW1 BW2 (%)SD1SD2 (%)
> __
> 1 1723616585 (-3.7)1 1 (0)
> 2 1679522693 (35.1)5 6 (20.0)
> 4 1339021502 (60.5)37 36 (-2.7)
> 8 1326124361 (83.7)163175 (7.3)
> 16 1277223796 (86.3)692826 (19.3)
> 32 1283223880 (86.0)2812 2871 (2.0)
> 64 1277924293 (90.1)11299 11237 (-.5)
> 1281300624857 (91.1)44778 43884 (-1.9)
> __
> Summary: BW: 37.1 SD: -1.2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
