From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-180.mta0.migadu.com (out-180.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B95B273170 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:47:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.180 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706197681; cv=none; b=VO7lUlvDYZZhu+hYy8XEbf1c8L+/+nRYDsoKbbkFRvSebyI/4mCbnf846hzEHVuzklaVStIkHCq4rSXrf+ELXk1WL1AldjG9Cnbmf4eqOY2rmOUrK1dHWuULtLTL5sK3SdTO+4KBXrlNhuvWTA0M0s62ha03YK3fudzWCEavV0c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706197681; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ruJNbJM+lXjN8eOkbsRsO/qJuuO+lype21X8FfBbk6s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=XkSJTwtdLebVQ3QQBHx2q6B250m1AYufowBdO1/K2hCf8wbKw5ALDRkE8XNki/lQr6SE9wHQ6EVhKWb9dzCsxWDGtVI7BPrr1Mn7cMi0FhxkS4XOfIscBH/YYx7zAPUryauXHHjzdgD0Eb0Q2jlAmRLCy3ACOR2Obn3utO6gAZQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=sWM9qHwu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.180 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="sWM9qHwu" Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:47:52 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1706197677; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=N6GdgkPksueJ10d0hvdhbVljnX3UdnJx8Y4TReITfac=; b=sWM9qHwufaDBQc46d+LpaH0oczvO+mP+O1m+T6AHsegD7XSO1Kr56yRCd5MklPY9tzh6/V NnwZiyqfHAur0gtnmtSMvYkNjcgsryS/LfjWE4FB7oqOGRADDAmuM0WWAMQtNvEfMyAt2Y S9TudHsnPFs/UWXMEp/OpMRviQGWEZ8= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Oliver Upton To: Marc Zyngier Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, James Morse , Suzuki K Poulose , Zenghui Yu , Raghavendra Rao Ananta , Jing Zhang Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] KVM: arm64: Improvements to GICv3 LPI injection Message-ID: References: <20240124204909.105952-1-oliver.upton@linux.dev> <86zfwt7k2e.wl-maz@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86zfwt7k2e.wl-maz@kernel.org> X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:02:01AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: [...] > > I would've liked to have benchmark data showing the improvement on top > > of upstream with this series, but I'm currently having issues with our > > internal infrastructure and upstream kernels. However, this series has > > been found to have a near 2x performance improvement to redis-memtier [*] > > benchmarks on our kernel tree. > > It'd be really good to have upstream-based numbers, with details of > the actual setup (device assignment? virtio?) so that we can compare > things and even track regressions in the future. Yeah, that sort of thing isn't optional IMO, I just figured that getting reviews on this would be a bit more productive while I try and recreate the test correctly on top of upstream. The test setup I based my "2x" statement on is 4 16 vCPU client VMs talking to 1 16 vCPU server VM over NIC VFs assigned to the respective VMs. 16 TX + 16 RX queues for each NIC. As I'm sure you're aware, I know damn near nothing about the Redis setup itself, and I'll need to do a bit of work to translate the thing I was using into a script. -- Thanks, Oliver