netdev - Re: rps perfomance WAS(Re: rps: question

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:	Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:43:45 -0400
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, therbert@...gle.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, robert@...julf.net, andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: rps perfomance WAS(Re: rps: question

On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 22:10 +0800, Changli Gao wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:49 PM, jamal <hadi@...erus.ca> wrote:

> > my observation is:
> > s->total is the sum of all packets received by cpu (some directly from
> > ethernet)
> 
> It is meaningless currently. If rps is enabled, it may be twice of the
> number of the packets received, because one packet may be count twice:
> one in enqueue_to_backlog(), and the other in __netif_receive_skb(). 

You are probably right - you made me look at my collected data ;->
i will look closely later, but it seems they are accounting for
different cpus, no? 
Example, attached are some of the stats i captured when i was running
the tests redirecting from CPU0 to CPU1 1M packets at about 20Kpps (just
cut to the first and last two columns):

cpu   Total     |rps_recv |rps_ipi
-----+----------+---------+---------
cpu0 | 002dc7f1 |00000000 |000f4246
cpu1 | 002dc804 |000f4240 |00000000
-------------------------------------

So: cpu0 receive 0x2dc7f1 pkts accummulative over time and
redirected to cpu1 (mostly, the extra 5 maybe to leftover since i clear
the data) and for the test 0xf4246 times it generated an IPI. It can be
seen that total running for CPU1 is 0x2dc804 but in this one run it
received 1M packets (0xf4240). 
i.e i dont see the double accounting..

cheers,
jamal

View attachment "st1" of type "text/plain" (793 bytes)