netdev - Re: [PATCH v5] rfs: Receive Flow 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:	Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:42:57 -0700
From:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] rfs: Receive Flow Steering

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le vendredi 16 avril 2010 à 11:35 -0700, Tom Herbert a écrit :
>> Results with "tbench 16" on an 8 core Intel machine.
>>
>> No RPS/RFS:  2155 MB/sec
>> RPS (0ff mask): 1700 MB/sec
>> RFS: 1097
>>

Blah, I mistakingly reported that... should have been:

No RPS/RFS:  2155 MB/sec
RPS (0ff mask): 1097 MB/sec
RFS: 1700 MB/sec

Sorry about that!

>> I am not particularly surprised by the results, using loopback
>> interface already provides good parallelism and RPS/RFS really would
>> only add overhead and more trips between CPUs (last part is why RPS <
>> RFS I suspect)-- I guess this is why we've never enabled RPS on
>> loopback :-)
>>
>> Eric, do you have a particular concern that this could affect a real workload?
>>
>
> I was expecting RFS to be better than RPS at least, for this particular
> workload (tcp over loopback)
>
This was my expectation too, and what my "corrected" numbers show :-)
But, I take it this is different in your results?

Tom
--
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