* Re: x86-64 Net Performance
2005-10-09 5:46 ` x86-64 Net Performance [was: Opteron server and NUMA] Alexander Charbonnet
@ 2005-10-09 7:33 ` Xan Charbonnet
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Xan Charbonnet @ 2005-10-09 7:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Ian Pratt, Nicholas Lee
Update: I went ahead and compiled glibc without TLS / NPTL. Also, I realized
that I wasn't allocating all my physical memory to Domain0 for these tests,
so I was giving Xen a disadvantage. It didn't change much, but those tests
have been re-done.
Here's the odd thing: disabling TLS for 64-bit improved native performance by
around 10%, but had no effect on Xen.
Native Domain0 Penalty
64-bit TLS 50.2 65.0 29.5%
64-bit no TLS 44.8 65.0 45.1%
32-bit TLS 59.6 59.5 -0.2%
32-bit no TLS 59.6 60.2 1.0%
Alex
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* RE: x86-64 Net Performance
@ 2005-10-09 9:18 Ian Pratt
2005-10-09 15:16 ` Andrew Theurer
2005-10-09 19:47 ` Alexander Charbonnet
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ian Pratt @ 2005-10-09 9:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xan Charbonnet, xen-devel; +Cc: Nicholas Lee
> Update: I went ahead and compiled glibc without TLS / NPTL.
For 64 bit Xen you don't need to worry about TLS/NPTL.
> Also, I realized that I wasn't allocating all my physical
> memory to Domain0 for these tests, so I was giving Xen a
> disadvantage. It didn't change much, but those tests have
> been re-done.
>
> Here's the odd thing: disabling TLS for 64-bit improved
> native performance by around 10%, but had no effect on Xen.
How did you disable TLS on 64 bit? It's odd that it would have any
effect on native or xen, let alone such a dramatic one. Are you sure
about this test?
> Native Domain0 Penalty
> 64-bit TLS 50.2 65.0 29.5%
> 64-bit no TLS 44.8 65.0 45.1%
> 32-bit TLS 59.6 59.5 -0.2%
> 32-bit no TLS 59.6 60.2 1.0%
It looks like we need to investigate x86_64 networking performance. We
may well not be getting the pipelining that we do in 32bit, though I
can't immediately think why,
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: x86-64 Net Performance
2005-10-09 9:18 x86-64 Net Performance Ian Pratt
@ 2005-10-09 15:16 ` Andrew Theurer
2005-10-10 1:52 ` Alexander Charbonnet
2005-10-09 19:47 ` Alexander Charbonnet
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Theurer @ 2005-10-09 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Pratt; +Cc: xen-devel, Xan Charbonnet, Nicholas Lee
Ian Pratt wrote:
>
>
>
>>Update: I went ahead and compiled glibc without TLS / NPTL.
>>
>>
>
>For 64 bit Xen you don't need to worry about TLS/NPTL.
>
>
>
>>Also, I realized that I wasn't allocating all my physical
>>memory to Domain0 for these tests, so I was giving Xen a
>>disadvantage. It didn't change much, but those tests have
>>been re-done.
>>
>>Here's the odd thing: disabling TLS for 64-bit improved
>>native performance by around 10%, but had no effect on Xen.
>>
>>
>
>How did you disable TLS on 64 bit? It's odd that it would have any
>effect on native or xen, let alone such a dramatic one. Are you sure
>about this test?
>
>
>
>> Native Domain0 Penalty
>>64-bit TLS 50.2 65.0 29.5%
>>64-bit no TLS 44.8 65.0 45.1%
>>32-bit TLS 59.6 59.5 -0.2%
>>32-bit no TLS 59.6 60.2 1.0%
>>
>>
>
>It looks like we need to investigate x86_64 networking performance. We
>may well not be getting the pipelining that we do in 32bit, though I
>can't immediately think why,
>
>
This is a bit surprising as most newer cpus (really any amd_64) has
plenty of processing power, and the Ethernet adapter is almost always
the bottleneck. This was with netperf, but I would not expect a http
get of a single file to be much worse.. I have also seen more overhead
in ia32 than amd_64. Xenoprofile showed (for me) about a 13% cpu
overhead (more than baremetal linux) in amd_64, 3% in xen and about 10%
for the sw bridge. On ia32 (intel xeon) this was about 23%, 13% in xen
and 10% for the bridge. I guess I should run these over again and
check; maybe something have dramatically changed things.
You might want to try this test without starting xend, so the network
bridge is not created and eth0 is put on it. Perhaps that is an issue.
Come to think of it, my tests were not with veth0/vif0.0 -that may
indeed be an issue, going through the front/back-end virtual interfaces,
then on the bridge, then on eth0. I'll kick off some tests tomorrow and
see what I get.
-Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: x86-64 Net Performance
2005-10-09 9:18 x86-64 Net Performance Ian Pratt
2005-10-09 15:16 ` Andrew Theurer
@ 2005-10-09 19:47 ` Alexander Charbonnet
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Charbonnet @ 2005-10-09 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Pratt; +Cc: xen-devel, Nicholas Lee
I did `apt-get source glibc`, edited debian/sysdeps/amd64.mk to comment out
the couple of lines enabling NPTL, then used dpkg-buildpackage to generate
new .debs.
Your skepticism was warranted; I double-checked my changes to that file, and I
had also disabled a line that set -O3 for the compile. This seems to account
for the performance difference on native; recompiling with -O3 intact slows
things down to normal. So the conclusion is that NPTL / TLS doesn't make
much difference.
However, it's kind of odd that disabling -O3 would make things faster on
native, but have no effect on Xen.
Alex
On Sunday 09 October 2005 04:18 am, Ian Pratt wrote:
> > Update: I went ahead and compiled glibc without TLS / NPTL.
>
> For 64 bit Xen you don't need to worry about TLS/NPTL.
>
> > Also, I realized that I wasn't allocating all my physical
> > memory to Domain0 for these tests, so I was giving Xen a
> > disadvantage. It didn't change much, but those tests have
> > been re-done.
> >
> > Here's the odd thing: disabling TLS for 64-bit improved
> > native performance by around 10%, but had no effect on Xen.
>
> How did you disable TLS on 64 bit? It's odd that it would have any
> effect on native or xen, let alone such a dramatic one. Are you sure
> about this test?
>
> > Native Domain0 Penalty
> > 64-bit TLS 50.2 65.0 29.5%
> > 64-bit no TLS 44.8 65.0 45.1%
> > 32-bit TLS 59.6 59.5 -0.2%
> > 32-bit no TLS 59.6 60.2 1.0%
>
> It looks like we need to investigate x86_64 networking performance. We
> may well not be getting the pipelining that we do in 32bit, though I
> can't immediately think why,
>
> Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: x86-64 Net Performance
2005-10-09 15:16 ` Andrew Theurer
@ 2005-10-10 1:52 ` Alexander Charbonnet
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Charbonnet @ 2005-10-10 1:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel; +Cc: Ian Pratt, Andrew Theurer, Nicholas Lee
> You might want to try this test without starting xend, so the network
> bridge is not created and eth0 is put on it. Perhaps that is an issue.
> Come to think of it, my tests were not with veth0/vif0.0 -that may
> indeed be an issue, going through the front/back-end virtual interfaces,
> then on the bridge, then on eth0. I'll kick off some tests tomorrow and
> see what I get.
xend was never started. All I did was boot with the Domain0 kernel. No
bridges; I'm talking straight to eth0.
That answers Nicholas's question, too; I haven't done anything besides Domain0
talking to itself.
Alex
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-10-10 1:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-10-09 9:18 x86-64 Net Performance Ian Pratt
2005-10-09 15:16 ` Andrew Theurer
2005-10-10 1:52 ` Alexander Charbonnet
2005-10-09 19:47 ` Alexander Charbonnet
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-10-08 17:51 Opteron server and NUMA Ian Pratt
2005-10-09 5:46 ` x86-64 Net Performance [was: Opteron server and NUMA] Alexander Charbonnet
2005-10-09 7:33 ` x86-64 Net Performance Xan Charbonnet
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.