OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

virtio-dev message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] Vhost-pci for inter-VM communication

On 2017年05月23日 13:47, Wei Wang wrote:
On 05/23/2017 10:08 AM, Jason Wang wrote:

On 2017年05月22日 19:46, Wang, Wei W wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 10:28 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2017年05月19日 23:33, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:10:33AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2017年05月18日 11:03, Wei Wang wrote:
On 05/17/2017 02:22 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2017年05月17日 14:16, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2017年05月16日 15:12, Wei Wang wrote:

Care to post the driver codes too?

OK. It may take some time to clean up the driver code before post it out. You can first have a check of the draft at the repo here:

Interesting, looks like there's one copy on tx side. We used to
have zerocopy support for tun for VM2VM traffic. Could you please
try to compare it with your vhost-pci-net by:

We can analyze from the whole data path - from VM1's network stack
to send packets -> VM2's network stack to receive packets. The
number of copies are actually the same for both.
That's why I'm asking you to compare the performance. The only reason
for vhost-pci is performance. You should prove it.
There is another reason for vhost-pci besides maximum performance:

vhost-pci makes it possible for end-users to run networking or storage
appliances in compute clouds.  Cloud providers do not allow end-users
to run custom vhost-user processes on the host so you need vhost-pci.

Then it has non NFV use cases and the question goes back to the performance comparing between vhost-pci and zerocopy vhost_net. If it does not perform
better, it was less interesting at least in this case.

Probably I can share what we got about vhost-pci and vhost-user:
Right now, I don’t have the environment to add the vhost_net test.

Thanks, the number looks good. But I have some questions:

- Is the number measured through your vhost-pci kernel driver code?

Yes, the kernel driver code.

Interesting, in the above link, "l2fwd" was used in vhost-pci testing. I want to know more about the test configuration: If l2fwd is the one that dpdk had, want to know how can you make it work for kernel driver. (Maybe packet socket I think?) If not, want to know how do you configure it (e.g through bridge or act_mirred or others). And in OVS dpdk, is dpdk l2fwd + pmd used in the testing?

- Have you tested packet size other than 64B?

Not yet.

Better to test more since the time spent on 64B copy should be very fast.

- Is zerocopy supported in OVS-dpdk? If yes, is it enabled in your test?
zerocopy is not used in the test, but I don't think zerocopy can increase
the throughput to 2x.

I agree, but we need prove this with numbers.


On the other side, we haven't put effort to optimize
the draft kernel driver yet.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]