[lkml]   [2014]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: macvtap performance regression (bisected) between 3.13 and 3.14-rc1
On 03/01/2014 06:15 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 28/02/14 23:14, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> On 02/27/2014 03:52 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> Vlad,
>>> commit 6acf54f1cf0a6747bac9fea26f34cfc5a9029523
>>> macvtap: Add support of packet capture on macvtap device.
>>> causes a performance regression for iperf traffic between two KVM guests
>>> on my s390 system. Both guests are connected via two macvtaps on the same OSA
>>> network card.
>>> Before that patch I get ~20 Gbit/sec between two guests, afterwards I get
>>> ~4Gbit/sec
>>> Latency seems to be unchanges (uperf 1byte ping pong).
>>> According to ifconfig in the guest, I have ~ 1500 bytes per packet with this
>>> patch and ~ 40000 bytes without. So for some reason this patch causes the
>>> network stack to do segmentation. (the guest kernel stays the same, only host
>>> kernel is changed).
>>> Any ideas?
>> I am looking. It shouldn't cause addition segmentations and when I ran
>> netperf on the code I didn't see any difference in the throughput.
> Dont know if the different bytes/packets ratio is really the reason or
> just a side effect. As a hint: the underlying network device does not support
> segmentation, but this should not matter for traffic between to guests.

Could you post 'ethtool -k' output for both lower-level device and the
macvtap device?


> Maybe you remember, we had a similar situation with commit 3e4f8b787370978733ca6cae452720a4f0c296b8
> (macvtap: Perform GSO on forwarding path), the setup is basically the same.
> Christian
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to
> More majordomo info at

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-03-01 21:41    [W:0.061 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site