netdev - Re: [PATCH] Software receive packet steering

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

Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:58:30 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...u.dk>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, therbert@...gle.com,
	shemminger@...tta.com, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	andi@...stfloor.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se>,
	Jens Laas <jens.laas@....UU.SE>, hawk@...x.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Software receive packet steering

On Wed, Apr 22 2009, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, David Miller wrote:
>
>> One thought I keep coming back to is the hack the block layer
>> is using right now.  It remembers which CPU a block I/O request
>> comes in on, and it makes sure the completion runs on that
>> cpu too.

Hack?! :-)

It's actually nicely integrated to our existing IO completion path,
where we raise a softirq to complete the IO out of path. The only
difference now being that if you enable rq_affinity, it'll raise the
softirq potentially on a remote CPU except of always using the local
one.

> This is also very important for routing performance.
>
> Experiences from practical 10GbE routing tests (done by Roberts team and
> my self), reveals that we can only achieve (close to) 10Gbit/s routing
> performance when carefully making sure that the rx-queue and tx-queue runs
> on the same CPU. (Not doing so really kills performance).
>
> Currently I'm using some patches by Jens Låås, that allows userspace to
> setup the rx-queue to tx-queues mapping, plus manual smp_affinity tuning.
> The problem with this approach is that it requires way too much manual
> tuning from userspace to achieve good performance.
>
> I would like to see an approach with less manual tuning, as we basically
> "just" need to make sure that TX completion is done on the same CPU as RX.
> I would like to see some effort in this area and is willing to partisipate
> actively.

I saw very nice benefits on the IO side as well!

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html