From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bin Ren <bin.ren@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Network Checksum Removal
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 22:48:28 +0100
Message-ID: <8ae7802505052314485e898622@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050520233015.GA26305@us.ibm.com>
	<8ae78025050523085662a94019@mail.gmail.com>
	<8ae7802505052309067d88f174@mail.gmail.com>
	<200505231116.16964.jdmason@us.ibm.com>
	<8ae7802505052309362c2fb00e@mail.gmail.com>
	<32fa5a4ad70f86ee5637d30ffc890017@cl.cam.ac.uk>
	<8ae780250505231255a0cea3b@mail.gmail.com>
	<42924738.9020106@us.ibm.com>
Reply-To: bin.ren@cl.cam.ac.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <42924738.9020106@us.ibm.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Nivedita Singhvi <niv@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Andrew Theurer <habanero@us.ibm.com>, Jon Mason <jdmason@us.ibm.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 5/23/05, Nivedita Singhvi <niv@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Bin Ren wrote:
> > I've added the support for ethtools. By turning on and off netfront
> > checksum offloading, I'm getting the following throughput numbers,
> > using iperf. Each test was run three times. CPU usages are quite
> > similar in two cases ('top' output). Looks like checksum computation
> > is not a major overhead in domU networking.
> >
> > dom0/1/2 all have 128M memory. dom0 has e1000 tx checksum offloading tu=
rned on.
>=20
> Yeah, if you want to do anything network intensive, 128MB is just
> not enough - you really need more memory in your system.

I've given all the domains 256M memory and switched to netperf
TCP_STREAM (netperf -H server). almost no change. Details:

dom1->external: 420Mbps
dom1->dom0: 437Mbps
dom0->dom1: 200Mbps (!!!)
dom1->dom2: 327Mbps

> =20
> > With Tx checksum on:
> >
> > dom1->dom2: 300Mb/s (dom0 cpu maxed out by software interrupts)
> > dom1->dom0: 459Mb/s (dom0 cpu 80% in SI, dom1 cpu 20% in SI)
> > dom1->external: 439Mb/s (over 1Gb/s ethernet) (dom0 cpu 50% in SI,
> > dom1 60% in SI)
> >
> > With Tx checksum off:
> >
> > dom1->dom2: 301Mb/s
> > dom1->dom0: 454Mb/s
> > dom1->externel: 437Mb/s (over 1Gb/s ethernet)
>=20
>=20
> iperf is a directional send test, correct?
> i.e. is dom1 -> dom0 perf the same as dom0 -> dom1 for you?

Please see above.