linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1 V2] Drivers: net-next: hyperv: Increase the size of the sendbuf region

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 04 Aug 2014 15:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	kys@...rosoft.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devel@...uxdriverproject.org, olaf@...fle.de, apw@...onical.com,
	jasowang@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1 V2] Drivers: net-next: hyperv: Increase the size of
 the sendbuf region

From: "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>
Date: Sat,  2 Aug 2014 10:42:02 -0700

> Intel did some benchmarking on our network throughput when Linux on Hyper-V
> is as used as a gateway. This fix gave us almost a 1 Gbps additional throughput
> on about 5Gbps base throughput we hadi, prior to increasing the sendbuf size.
> The sendbuf mechanism is a copy based transport that we have which is clearly
> more optimal than the copy-free page flipping mechanism (for small packets).
> In the forwarding scenario, we deal only with MTU sized packets,
> and increasing the size of the senbuf area gave us the additional performance.
> For what it is worth, Windows guests on Hyper-V, I am told use similar sendbuf
> size as well.
> 
> The exact value of sendbuf I think is less important than the fact that it needs
> to be larger than what Linux can allocate as physically contiguous memory.
> Thus the change over to allocating via vmalloc().
> 
> We currently allocate 16MB receive buffer and we use vmalloc there for allocation.
> Also the low level channel code has already been modified to deal with physically
> dis-contiguous memory in the ringbuffer setup.
> 
> Based on experimentation Intel did, they say there was some improvement in throughput
> as the sendbuf size was increased up to 16MB and there was no effect on throughput
> beyond 16MB. Thus I have chosen 16MB here.
> 
> Increasing the sendbuf value makes a material difference in small packet handling
> 
> In this version of the patch, based on David's feedback, I have added
> additional details in the commit log.
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>

APplied.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/