From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com (mail-lb0-f169.google.com [209.85.217.169]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D933CF9 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2015 01:47:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: by lbbzr7 with SMTP id zr7so68982287lbb.1 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bbbb33TbD90OpB+Nm2sCMws56yBvMtvJQXoxG0bo3H8=; b=oCRx9UQeiHBmKqjwtJYa8Lvu6WBJIgOVE5wDQCSkaJeaP10lgP8Iu8en8d+QNQ9j5J z0iH3fHv3GsO+9h1VTaOXYc+eAH3QC0nQnXNY8izsSdWWRlWrpqeQKO0tmQIvxFoyA87 kC2oX4WUsii1NXYwC3Oms6y6bZsUQQaCc/XooKCk9Fb4+N+oPPfzJb+GEYWRqqPN6LLR DQ5d2ENExvJlkIgnRTZVdIR0D13bsXOqFpgouxG9DR/8ndRVqsjAn2P5CCBC1sBX1098 IceWYng7Uy4ct/oV/V00eOmnV51fPmN2G7Dy1qLWsBtXc+j8nwlDdWJJ1+XNSVC8QoYv AOCw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.8.16 with SMTP id n16mr16562975laa.17.1437176869796; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.183.165 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150717142050.779a0378@urahara> References: <20150717142050.779a0378@urahara> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:47:49 -0700 Message-ID: From: Clarylin L To: Stephen Hemminger Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-virtio] Performance tuning for dpdk with virtio? X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:47:52 -0000 My VM has two ports connecting to two linux bridges (in turn connecting two physical ports). DPDK is used to forward between these two ports (one port connected to traffic generator and the other connected to sink). I used iperf to test the throughput between the traffic generator and one port on VM, as well as throughput between the other port and the sink. Both legs show around 7.5G throughput. Traffic anyway would goes through bridge to reach to the VM ports, so I think linux bridge does support much higher throughput, doesn't it? On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Stephen Hemminger < stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:03:15 -0700 > Clarylin L wrote: > > > I am running dpdk with a virtual guest as a L2 forwarder. > > > > If the virtual guest is on passthrough, dpdk can achieve around 10G > > throughput. However if the virtual guest is on virtio, dpdk achieves just > > 150M throughput, which is a huge degrade. Any idea what could be the > cause > > of such poor performance on virtio? and any performance tuning > techniques I > > could try? Thanks a lot! > > The default Linux bridge (and OVS) switch are your bottleneck. > It is not DPDK virtio issue in general. There are some small performance > gains still possible with virtio enhancements (like offloading). > > Did you try running OVS-DPDK on the host? >