From: "Wang, Zhihong" <zhihong.wang@intel.com>
To: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Bie, Tiwei" <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] Vhost: unitfy receive paths
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 09:55:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8F6C2BD409508844A0EFC19955BE09415151C529@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180529094514.23835-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maxime Coquelin [mailto:maxime.coquelin@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 5:45 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org; Bie, Tiwei <tiwei.bie@intel.com>; Wang, Zhihong
> <zhihong.wang@intel.com>
> Cc: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
> Subject: [PATCH v2 0/2] Vhost: unitfy receive paths
>
> Hi,
>
> This second version fixes the feature bit check in
> rxvq_is_mergeable(), and remove "mergeable" from rx funcs
> names. No difference is seen in the benchmarks
>
> This series is preliminary work to ease the integration of
> packed ring layout support. But even without packed ring
> layout, the result is positive.
>
> First patch unify both paths, and second one is a small
> optimization to avoid copying batch_copy_nb_elems VQ field
> to/from the stack.
>
> With the series applied, I get modest performance gain for
> both mergeable and non-mergeable casesi (, and the gain of
> about 300 LoC is non negligible maintenance-wise.
>
> Rx-mrg=off benchmarks:
>
> +------------+-------+-------------+-------------+----------+
> | Run | PVP | Guest->Host | Host->Guest | Loopback |
> +------------+-------+-------------+-------------+----------+
> | v18.05-rc5 | 14.47 | 16.64 | 17.57 | 13.15 |
> | + series | 14.87 | 16.86 | 17.70 | 13.30 |
> +------------+-------+-------------+-------------+----------+
>
> Rx-mrg=on benchmarks:
>
> +------------+------+-------------+-------------+----------+
> | Run | PVP | Guest->Host | Host->Guest | Loopback |
> +------------+------+-------------+-------------+----------+
> | v18.05-rc5 | 9.38 | 13.78 | 16.70 | 12.79 |
> | + series | 9.38 | 13.80 | 17.49 | 13.36 |
> +------------+------+-------------+-------------+----------+
>
> Note: Even without my series, the guest->host benchmark with
> mergeable buffers enabled looks suspicious as it should in
> theory be alsmost identical as when Rx mergeable buffers are
> disabled. To be investigated...
>
> Maxime Coquelin (2):
> vhost: unify Rx mergeable and non-mergeable paths
> vhost: improve batched copies performance
>
> lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c | 376 +++++-------------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 339 deletions(-)
>
Acked-by: Zhihong Wang <zhihong.wang@intel.com>
Thanks Maxime! This is really great to see. ;) We probably need the
same improvement for Virtio-pmd.
One comment on Virtio/Vhost performance analysis: No matter what type
of traffic is used (PVP, or Txonly-Rxonly, Loopback...), we need to
be clear on who we're testing, and give the other part excessive CPU
resources, otherwise we'll be testing whoever the slowest.
Since this patch is for Vhost, I suggest to run N (e.g. N = 4) Virtio
threads on N cores, and the corresponding N Vhost threads on a single
core, to do performance comparison. Do you think this makes sense?
For Guest -> Host, in my test I see Rx-mrg=on has negative impact on
Virtio side, probably because Virtio touches something that's not
touched when Rx-mrg=off.
Thanks
-Zhihong
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-31 9:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-29 9:45 Maxime Coquelin
2018-05-29 9:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] vhost: unify Rx mergeable and non-mergeable paths Maxime Coquelin
2018-05-29 9:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] vhost: improve batched copies performance Maxime Coquelin
2018-05-31 9:55 ` Wang, Zhihong [this message]
2018-05-31 12:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] Vhost: unitfy receive paths Maxime Coquelin
2018-06-08 13:58 ` Maxime Coquelin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8F6C2BD409508844A0EFC19955BE09415151C529@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com \
--to=zhihong.wang@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com \
--cc=tiwei.bie@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).