Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues

From	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues
Date	2016-05-27 16:20 +0200
Message-ID	<rDqMh-4xu-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <rirN1-87-35@gated-at.bofh.it> <rirN1-87-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <riE7w-G2-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <riOqe-8lu-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <rDmfE-1CR-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:22:19PM +0300, Michael Rapoport wrote:
> I've run two guests without any CPU pinning and without any actual 
> interaction with cgroups
> Here's the results (in MBits/sec):
> 
> size |   64  |   256   |  1024   |  4096   |  16384
> -----+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------
> (1)  | 496.8 | 1346.31 | 6058.49 | 13736.2 | 13541.4
> (2)  | 493.3 | 1604.03 | 5723.68 | 10181.4 | 15572.4
> (3)  | 489.7 | 1437.86 | 6251.12 | 12774.2 | 12867.9 
> 
> 
> From what I see, for different packet sizes there's different approach 
> that outperforms the others.
> Moreover, I'd expect that in case when vhost completely takes over the 
> worker thread there would no be difference vs. current state.
> 
> Tejun, can you help explaining these results? 

Heh, the only thing I can tell is the tests seem noisy and weren't run
enough times to draw any conclusion.  Even if the numbers were
consistent, I don't think anybody would be able to tell a lot from
just the results.  If the results can be made stable, perf would be a
good place to start.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues "Michael Rapoport" <RAPOPORT@il.ibm.com> - 2016-05-27 11:30 +0200
  Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cgroup aware workqueues Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-05-27 16:20 +0200

csiph-web