Hi all,

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 7:41 AM Jason Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> 在 2022/2/8 下午9:09, Andrew Melnichenko 写道:
> > Hi people,
> > Can you please review this series?
>
>
> Are there any performance number to demonstrate the difference?
>
> Thanks
>

Yeah, I've used udpgso_bench from Linux to test.
Here are some numbers:

Sending packets with size 10000

Without USO:
```
$ ./udpgso_bench_tx -4 -D 192.168.15.1 -s 10000 -S 1000
random: crng init done
random: 7 urandom warning(s) missed due to ratelimiting
udp tx:     36 MB/s     3863 calls/s   3863 msg/s
udp tx:     32 MB/s     3360 calls/s   3360 msg/s
udp tx:     31 MB/s     3340 calls/s   3340 msg/s
udp tx:     31 MB/s     3353 calls/s   3353 msg/s
udp tx:     32 MB/s     3359 calls/s   3359 msg/s
udp tx:     32 MB/s     3370 calls/s   3370 msg/s
```

With USO:
```
$ ./udpgso_bench_tx -4 -D 192.168.15.1 -s 10000 -S 1000
random: crng init done
random: 7 urandom warning(s) missed due to ratelimiting
udp tx:    120 MB/s    12596 calls/s  12596 msg/s
udp tx:    122 MB/s    12885 calls/s  12885 msg/s
udp tx:    120 MB/s    12667 calls/s  12667 msg/s
udp tx:    123 MB/s    12969 calls/s  12969 msg/s
udp tx:    116 MB/s    12232 calls/s  12232 msg/s
udp tx:    108 MB/s    11389 calls/s  11389 msg/s
```


>
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 10:32 AM Yuri Benditovich
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 9:54 AM Xuan Zhuo <[email protected]> 
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 10:46:57 +0200, Andrew Melnychenko 
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Added new offloads for TUN devices TUN_F_USO4 and TUN_F_USO6.
> >>>> Technically they enable NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4
> >>>> (and only if USO4 & USO6 are set simultaneously).
> >>>> It allows to transmission of large UDP packets.
> >>>>
> >>>> Different features USO4 and USO6 are required for qemu where Windows 
> >>>> guests can
> >>>> enable disable USO receives for IPv4 and IPv6 separately.
> >>>> On the other side, Linux can't really differentiate USO4 and USO6, for 
> >>>> now.
> >>>> For now, to enable USO for TUN it requires enabling USO4 and USO6 
> >>>> together.
> >>>> In the future, there would be a mechanism to control UDP_L4 GSO 
> >>>> separately.
> >>>>
> >>>> Test it WIP Qemu https://github.com/daynix/qemu/tree/Dev_USOv2
> >>>>
> >>>> New types for VirtioNet already on mailing:
> >>>> https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202110/msg00010.html
> >>> Seems like this hasn't been upvoted yet.
> >>>
> >>>          https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec#use-of-github-issues
> >> Yes, correct. This is a reason why this series of patches is RFC.
> >>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>>> Also, there is a known issue with transmitting packages between two 
> >>>> guests.
> >>>> Without hacks with skb's GSO - packages are still segmented on the 
> >>>> host's postrouting.
> >>>>
> >>>> Andrew Melnychenko (5):
> >>>>    uapi/linux/if_tun.h: Added new ioctl for tun/tap.
> >>>>    driver/net/tun: Added features for USO.
> >>>>    uapi/linux/virtio_net.h: Added USO types.
> >>>>    linux/virtio_net.h: Added Support for GSO_UDP_L4 offload.
> >>>>    drivers/net/virtio_net.c: Added USO support.
> >>>>
> >>>>   drivers/net/tap.c               | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> >>>>   drivers/net/tun.c               | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> >>>>   drivers/net/virtio_net.c        | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
> >>>>   include/linux/virtio_net.h      | 11 +++++++++++
> >>>>   include/uapi/linux/if_tun.h     |  3 +++
> >>>>   include/uapi/linux/virtio_net.h |  4 ++++
> >>>>   6 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.34.1
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Virtualization mailing list
> >>>> [email protected]
> >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Reply via email to