From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: virtio ring layout changes for optimal single-stream performance Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:39:26 +0200 Message-ID: <20160121145418-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, dev@dpdk.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org To: virtio@lists.oasis-open.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3DD08E9E for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:39:30 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi all! I have been experimenting with alternative virtio ring layouts, in order to speed up single stream performance. I have just posted a benchmark I wrote for the purpose, and a (partial) alternative layout implementation. This achieves 20-40% reduction in virtio overhead in the (default) polling mode. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.virtualization/26889 The layout is trying to be as simple as possible, to reduce the number of cache lines bouncing between CPUs. For benchmarking, the idea is to emulate virtio in user-space, artificially adding overhead for e.g. signalling to match what happens in case of a VM. I'd be very curious to get feedback on this, in particular, some people discussed using vectored operations to format virtio ring - would it conflict with this work? You are all welcome to post enhancements or more layout alternatives as patches. TODO: - documentation+discussion of interaction with CPU caching - thorough benchmarking of different configurations/hosts - experiment with event index replacements - better emulate vmexit/vmentry cost overhead - virtio spec proposal Thanks! -- MST