From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753351Ab3LPKOs (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 16 Dec 2013 05:14:48 -0500
Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:47522 "EHLO
	SMTP02.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753261Ab3LPKOa (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 16 Dec 2013 05:14:30 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,493,1384300800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="82568272"
Message-ID: <1387188867.20076.46.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/5] xen-netback: TX grant mapping instead
 of copy
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
To: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@citrix.com>
CC: <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
        <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <jonathan.davies@citrix.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:14:27 +0000
In-Reply-To: <52AA33CF.6030004@citrix.com>
References: <1383094220-14775-1-git-send-email-zoltan.kiss@citrix.com>
			 <1383303035.672.29.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
			 <5273FA37.6020903@citrix.com>
		 <1383821563.26213.168.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
		 <52977F5C.7090703@citrix.com>
	 <1385660592.20209.27.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
	 <52AA33CF.6030004@citrix.com>
Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-3 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.80.2.80]
X-DLP: MIA2
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 22:08 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> On 28/11/13 17:43, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 17:37 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> > Routing/firewalling domUs is as valid as bridging. There is nothing in
> > the slightest bit suboptimal about it.
> >
> > If this use case regresses with this approach then I'm afraid that
> > either needs to be addressed or a different approach considered.
> >
> >> Anyway, I will try this out, and see if it really copies everything, and
> >> get some numbers as well.
> >
> > Thanks.
> 
> Now I managed to try it out. As I expected, Dom0 does copy the mapped 
> page. The peak throuhput I could get was 6.6 Gbps, however it could keep 
> that only for short periods, I guess when the unmapping was ideally 
> batched. The average was 5.53.
> On the same machine the same 10 min iperf session, without my patches 
> made the peak 5.9 while the average was 5.65. Do you think it is an 
> acceptable regression?

Well, it would of course be preferable to avoid it. I'm quite reluctant
to see this scenario become a second class citizen.

> I used 3.12 Dom0 and guest kernel, the guest transmitted though a 10Gb 
> card to a bare metal box.
> I plan to look further if we can avoid somehow this:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/20/363
> 
> So then this scenario can benefit from grant mapping.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Zoli