Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/netfront: improve truesize tracking

[Sander Eikelenboom <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Monday, January 7, 2013, 2:41:03 PM, you wrote:

> On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 20:40 +0000, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>> Friday, December 21, 2012, 7:33:43 PM, you wrote:
>> 
>> > I'm guessing that trusize checks matter more on the "inbound" path than 
>> > the outbound path?  If that is indeed the case, then instead of, or in 
>> > addition to using the -s option to set the local (netperf side) socket 
>> > buffer size, you should use a -S option to set the remote (netserver 
>> > side) socket buffer size.
>> 
>> > happy benchmarking,
>> 
>> > rick jones
>> 
>> 
>> OK, ran them with -S as well:

> Are these all from domU -> dom0 ? Did you try traffic going the other
> way?

Yes running netperf in domU and netserver in dom0, but i must say i'm far from 
a netperf expert.
So i don't even know for sure if the tests i ran give a good picture.

>> "current" is with netfront as is        (skb->truesize += skb->data_len - 
>> RX_COPY_THRESHOLD;)
>> "patched" is with IanC's latest patch   (skb->truesize += PAGE_SIZE * 
>> skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags;)

skb->>truesize += skb->data_len - NETFRONT_SKB_CB(skb)->pull_to; is
> probably more interesting to compare against since we know the current
> one is buggy.

Will see if i can run against that as well, although i thought Eric said to 
prefer the "skb->truesize += PAGE_SIZE * skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags;"


> These number generally look good, largely +/- 1%, often in favour of the
> updated code but these two stand out as worrying:

>> TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.1.1 
>> (192.168.1.1) port 0 AF_INET : +/-2.500% @ 95% conf.  : demo
>>         Recv   Send    Send
>>         Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
>>         Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
>>         bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    KBytes/sec
>> 
>> current 18000  16384   1432    60.00    37559.94
>> patched 18000  16384   1432    60.00    40630.66
>> 
>> TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.1.1 
>> (192.168.1.1) port 0 AF_INET : +/-2.500% @ 95% conf.  : demo
>>         Recv   Send    Send
>>         Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
>>         Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
>>         bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    KBytes/sec
>> 
>> current 28000  16384  16384    60.00    103766.68
>> patched 28000  16384  16384    60.00    93277.98

> That's at least a 10% slow down in both cases.

>> UDP UNIDIRECTIONAL SEND TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 
>> 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) port 0 AF_INET : +/-2.500% @ 95% conf.  : demo
>>         Socket  Message  Elapsed      Messages
>>         Size    Size     Time         Okay Errors   Throughput
>>         bytes   bytes    secs            #      #   KBytes/sec
>> 
>> current 212992   65507   60.00      252586      0    269305.73
>> current   2280           60.00      229371           244553.96
>> patched 212992   65507   60.00      256209      0    273168.32
>> patched   2280           60.00      201670           215019.54

> The recv numbers here aren't too pleasing either.

> However, given that this fixes a real issue which people are seeing I'd
> be inclined to go with it, at least for now.

> Ian.




_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel