From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 2/2] vhost_net: basic polling support Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:46:33 -0700 Message-ID: <562904D9.9080109@hpe.com> References: <1445491649-62614-1-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <1445491649-62614-2-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <20151022113824-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Jason Wang Return-path: Received: from g1t6225.austin.hp.com ([15.73.96.126]:51594 "EHLO g1t6225.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964826AbbJVPrc (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:47:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20151022113824-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/22/2015 02:33 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 01:27:29AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote: >> This patch tries to poll for new added tx buffer for a while at the >> end of tx processing. The maximum time spent on polling were limited >> through a module parameter. To avoid block rx, the loop will end it >> there's new other works queued on vhost so in fact socket receive >> queue is also be polled. >> >> busyloop_timeout = 50 gives us following improvement on TCP_RR test: >> >> size/session/+thu%/+normalize% >> 1/ 1/ +5%/ -20% >> 1/ 50/ +17%/ +3% > > Is there a measureable increase in cpu utilization > with busyloop_timeout = 0? And since a netperf TCP_RR test is involved, be careful about what netperf reports for CPU util if that increase isn't in the context of the guest OS. For completeness, looking at the effect on TCP_STREAM and TCP_MAERTS, aggregate _RR and even aggregate _RR/packets per second for many VMs on the same system would be in order. happy benchmarking, rick jones