From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ANNIE LI Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/4] Implement persistent grant in xen-netfront/netback Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:12:35 +0800 Message-ID: <50A4CE23.40804@oracle.com> References: <1352962987-541-1-git-send-email-annie.li@oracle.com> <20121115074057.GO8912@reaktio.net> <50A4AA06.8080900@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Wei Liu Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ian Campbell , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 2012-11-15 17:35, Wei Liu wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM, ANNIE LI > wrote: > > > > On 2012-11-15 15:40, Pasi K=E4rkk=E4inen wrote: > > Hello, > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 03:03:07PM +0800, Annie Li wrote: > > This patch implements persistent grants for > xen-netfront/netback. This > mechanism maintains page pools in netback/netfront, these > page pools is used to > save grant pages which are mapped. This way improve > performance which is wasted > when doing grant operations. > > Current netback/netfront does map/unmap grant operations > frequently when > transmitting/receiving packets, and grant operations cost= s > much cpu clock. In > this patch, netfront/netback maps grant pages when needed > and then saves them > into a page pool for future use. All these pages will be > unmapped when > removing/releasing the net device. > > Do you have performance numbers available already? > with/without persistent grants? > > I have some simple netperf/netserver test result with/without > persistent grants, > > Following is result of with persistent grant patch, > > Guests, Sum, Avg, Min, Max > 1, 15106.4, 15106.4, 15106.36, 15106.36 > 2, 13052.7, 6526.34, 6261.81, 6790.86 > 3, 12675.1, 6337.53, 6220.24, 6454.83 > 4, 13194, 6596.98, 6274.70, 6919.25 > > > Following are result of without persistent patch > > Guests, Sum, Avg, Min, Max > 1, 10864.1, 10864.1, 10864.10, 10864.10 > 2, 10898.5, 5449.24, 4862.08, 6036.40 > 3, 10734.5, 5367.26, 5261.43, 5473.08 > 4, 10924, 5461.99, 5314.84, 5609.14 > > > > Interesting results. Have you tested how good it is on a 10G nic, i.e= =2E=20 > guest sending packets > through physical network to another host. Not yet. Thanks Annie > > > Wei. > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel