From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CEE1C4360F for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:44:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55478206BA for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:44:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728570AbfDDPoj (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:44:39 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f68.google.com ([209.85.128.68]:37000 "EHLO mail-wm1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726952AbfDDPoi (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:44:38 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id v14so3975688wmf.2 for ; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 08:44:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=quvEgu5wfACbSNtM098KbjbidKz06p0TY4PFtqIhRfU=; b=XX+Hsn5sDo/zrgR5aVGgwAzztvRdI4fzHk1HsmPjHKzoSVE51GSrnkXMZjbGt/c7v+ cNc0CB4/1aLihaRQISoiE+/Zis2tKKw3+7z3pjLMZP18CbytdPBYqP/j3zbTusu980OG NFqgV5g6EGoOfSkM2obC+dSvL77IG/6f4Vwtg7J44dVaoj0cmuexcaqQGh4EIRtXdNsQ aikAaqymoEVMRLS7qYixWTmc5jHJ7UMagLfCbXnXg4kjV3KKyE5DCuhZ/QxhjGTGAePd 9C9YmTXmq7dktkBQz7H5gkyFqx/wp/USArQmdUNhuvowDP3uKiZl7Vue/zrWmgUMOUnp jx9w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWVF8gzCtKNMLZSeE64FKNXkd9tSmjim0GR9eiHk3p/G5IxFb4t LvWsNs5pMIsbY6T3OEa6z52RNQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwC3KkdifxCVan/RXP6UEshEcQAMhQZdIPXmHhjapWt8EJBSG3WbTu4kwmumumGbY8MllIgzg== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:df89:: with SMTP id w131mr2500408wmg.82.1554392677297; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 08:44:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from steredhat (host35-203-static.12-87-b.business.telecomitalia.it. [87.12.203.35]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j7sm26063448wrt.96.2019.04.04.08.44.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 04 Apr 2019 08:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:44:34 +0200 From: Stefano Garzarella To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jason Wang , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Stefan Hajnoczi , kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] vsock/virtio: optimizations to increase the throughput Message-ID: <20190404154434.shaxqzfzacfqqyzx@steredhat> References: <20190404105838.101559-1-sgarzare@redhat.com> <20190404141410.GA25152@stefanha-x1.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190404141410.GA25152@stefanha-x1.localdomain> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 03:14:10PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 12:58:34PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > This series tries to increase the throughput of virtio-vsock with slight > > changes: > > - patch 1/4: reduces the number of credit update messages sent to the > > transmitter > > - patch 2/4: allows the host to split packets on multiple buffers, > > in this way, we can remove the packet size limit to > > VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_RX_BUF_SIZE > > - patch 3/4: uses VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE as the max packet size > > allowed > > - patch 4/4: increases RX buffer size to 64 KiB (affects only host->guest) > > > > RFC: > > - maybe patch 4 can be replaced with multiple queues with different > > buffer sizes or using EWMA to adapt the buffer size to the traffic > > > > - as Jason suggested in a previous thread [1] I'll evaluate to use > > virtio-net as transport, but I need to understand better how to > > interface with it, maybe introducing sk_buff in virtio-vsock. > > > > Any suggestions? > > Great performance results, nice job! :) > > Please include efficiency numbers (bandwidth / CPU utilization) in the > future. Due to the nature of these optimizations it's unlikely that > efficiency has decreased, so I'm not too worried about it this time. Thanks for the suggestion! I'll measure also the efficiency for future optimizations. Cheers, Stefano