On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 10:45:02AM +0800, openlui wrote:
>
>
> >Persistent grant is not silver bullet. There is email thread on the
> >list discussing whether it should be removed in block driver.
>
> I have tried to look for the thread but no detailed info. Could you give me
> some keyword to f
At 2015-02-27 19:30:20, "David Vrabel" wrote:
>On 27/02/15 10:59, Wei Liu wrote:
>>
>> Persistent grant is not silver bullet. There is email thread on the
>> list discussing whether it should be removed in block driver.
>
>Persistent grants for to-guest network traffic is a flawed idea. It
>eith
At 2015-02-27 18:59:52, "Wei Liu" wrote:
>Cc'ing David (XenServer kernel maintainer)
>
>On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 05:21:11PM +0800, openlui wrote:
>> >On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 01:08:18PM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 06:44:26AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
On 27/02/15 10:59, Wei Liu wrote:
>
> Persistent grant is not silver bullet. There is email thread on the
> list discussing whether it should be removed in block driver.
Persistent grants for to-guest network traffic is a flawed idea. It
either requires:
a) the backend to memcpy into the mapped
Cc'ing David (XenServer kernel maintainer)
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 05:21:11PM +0800, openlui wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 01:08:18PM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 06:44:26AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> >> > > > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 01:17:16AM
>On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 01:08:18PM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 06:44:26AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
>> > > > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 01:17:16AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
>> > > > [...]
>> > > > > > I think that's expected, because guest RX d
On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 02:51 +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> What is the recommended way to have a discussion with XenServer folks?
> Through the forum of XenServer or the standalone mailing list? I find
> the most of discussions in forum are the production of XenServer.
AIUI development == l
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 01:08:18PM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 06:44:26AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 01:17:16AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump)
> wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > By the way, after rethinking the testing resul
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 01:08:18PM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 06:44:26AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 01:17:16AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump)
> wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > The newest mail about persistent g
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 01:08:18PM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 06:44:26AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 01:17:16AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > > I think that's expected, because guest RX data p
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 06:44:26AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 01:17:16AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > I think that's expected, because guest RX data path still uses
> > > > > grant_copy while guest TX uses grant_map to do zero-co
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 06:44:26AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 01:17:16AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > I think that's expected, because guest RX data path still uses
> > > > grant_copy while guest TX uses grant_map to do zero-copy transmi
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 01:17:16AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> [...]
> > > I think that's expected, because guest RX data path still uses
> > > grant_copy while guest TX uses grant_map to do zero-copy transmit.
> >
> > As far as I know, there are three main grant-related operations used
ber 04, 2014 9:35 PM
> > >>To: Zhangleiqiang (Trump); Wei Liu; xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> > >>Cc: Xiaoding (B); Zhuangyuxin; zhangleiqiang; Luohao (brian); Yuzhou
> > >>(C)
> > >>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Poor network performance between DomU with
>
To: Zhangleiqiang (Trump); Wei Liu; xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> >>Cc: Xiaoding (B); Zhuangyuxin; zhangleiqiang; Luohao (brian); Yuzhou (C)
> >>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Poor network performance between DomU with
> >>multiqueue support
> >>
> >>
> >>
); Yuzhou (C)
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Poor network performance between DomU with
multiqueue support
On 04/12/14 12:09, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
I think that's expected, because guest RX data path still uses
grant_copy while
guest TX uses grant_map to do zero-copy transmit.
As I understand, t
On 05/12/14 12:42, Wei Liu wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 01:17:16AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
[...]
I think that's expected, because guest RX data path still uses grant_copy while
guest TX uses grant_map to do zero-copy transmit.
As far as I know, there are three main grant-relate
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 01:17:16AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
[...]
> > I think that's expected, because guest RX data path still uses grant_copy
> > while
> > guest TX uses grant_map to do zero-copy transmit.
>
> As far as I know, there are three main grant-related operations used in sp
2, 2014 11:59 PM
> > > To: Zhangleiqiang (Trump)
> > > Cc: Wei Liu; zhangleiqiang; xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Luohao (brian);
> > > Xiaoding (B); Yuzhou (C); Zhuangyuxin
> > > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Poor network performance between DomU with
> > >
gt; Cc: Wei Liu; xen-devel@lists.xen.org; zhangleiqiang; Luohao (brian); Xiaoding
> (B); Yuzhou (C); Zhuangyuxin
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Poor network performance between DomU with
> multiqueue support
>
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:09:33PM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> [...
: [Xen-devel] Poor network performance between DomU with
> multiqueue support
>
>
>
> On 04/12/14 12:09, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> >> I think that's expected, because guest RX data path still uses
> >> grant_copy while
> >> >guest TX uses grant_
On 04/12/14 12:09, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
I think that's expected, because guest RX data path still uses grant_copy while
>guest TX uses grant_map to do zero-copy transmit.
As I understand, the RX process is as follows:
1. Phy NIC receive packet
2. XEN Hypervisor trigger interrupt to Dom
; > Wei.
> > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > zhangleiqiang (Trump)
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -Original Message-
> > >
2, 2014 11:59 PM
> > > To: Zhangleiqiang (Trump)
> > > Cc: Wei Liu; zhangleiqiang; xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Luohao (brian);
> > > Xiaoding (B); Yuzhou (C); Zhuangyuxin
> > > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Poor network performance between DomU with
> > >
l@lists.xen.org; Luohao (brian);
> > Xiaoding
> > (B); Yuzhou (C); Zhuangyuxin
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Poor network performance between DomU with
> > multiqueue support
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 02:46:36PM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> > &
lower than VM transmit.
I am wondering why the VM receive throughout cannot be up to 8-10Gbps as VM
transmit under multi-queue? I also tried to send packets directly from Local
Dom0 to DomU, the DomU receive throughput can reach about 8-12Gbps, so I am
also wondering why transmitting packet
network performance between DomU with
multiqueue support
On 02/12/14 08:30, zhangleiqiang wrote:
Hi, all
I am testing the performance of xen netfront-netback driver that
with multi-queues support. The throughput from domU to remote dom0 is
9.2Gb/s, but the throughput from domU to remote domU
hy Dom0 only steers traffic to these two
queues but not all of them.
Don't know which utility is handy for this job. Probably tc(8) is
useful?
Wei.
> --
> zhangleiqiang (Trump)
>
> Best Regards
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wei Liu [mailto:w
hangleiqiang; xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Luohao (brian); Xiaoding
> (B); Yuzhou (C); Zhuangyuxin
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Poor network performance between DomU with
> multiqueue support
>
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 11:50:59AM +, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) wrote:
> > > -
o: zhangleiqiang
> > Cc: wei.l...@citrix.com; xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Poor network performance between DomU with
> > multiqueue support
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 04:30:49PM +0800, zhangleiqiang wrote:
> > > Hi, all
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: xen-devel-boun...@lists.xen.org
> [mailto:xen-devel-boun...@lists.xen.org] On Behalf Of David Vrabel
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 6:57 PM
> To: zhangleiqiang; xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Poor network performance
> -Original Message-
> From: xen-devel-boun...@lists.xen.org
> [mailto:xen-devel-boun...@lists.xen.org] On Behalf Of Wei Liu
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 7:02 PM
> To: zhangleiqiang
> Cc: wei.l...@citrix.com; xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Poo
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 04:30:49PM +0800, zhangleiqiang wrote:
> Hi, all
> I am testing the performance of xen netfront-netback driver that with
> multi-queues support. The throughput from domU to remote dom0 is 9.2Gb/s, but
> the throughput from domU to remote domU is only 3.6Gb/s, I think t
On 02/12/14 08:30, zhangleiqiang wrote:
> Hi, all
> I am testing the performance of xen netfront-netback driver that
> with multi-queues support. The throughput from domU to remote dom0 is
> 9.2Gb/s, but the throughput from domU to remote domU is only 3.6Gb/s, I
> think the bottleneck is the th
Hi, all
I am testing the performance of xen netfront-netback driver that with
multi-queues support. The throughput from domU to remote dom0 is 9.2Gb/s, but
the throughput from domU to remote domU is only 3.6Gb/s, I think the bottleneck
is the throughput from dom0 to local domU. However, we h
35 matches
Mail list logo
