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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:31:01 -0700 From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Michael Chan <mchan@...adcom.com>, Eilon Greenstein <eilong@...adcom.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: allocate skbs on local node > This is all conspicuously hand-wavy and unquantified. (IOW: prove it!) > > The mooted effects should be tested for on both slab and slub, I > suggest. They're pretty different beasts. > -- Some results running netper TCP_RR test with 200 instances, 1 byte request and response on 16 core AMD using bnx2x with one 16 queues, one for each CPU. SLAB Without patch 553570 tps at 86% CPU With patch 791883 tps at 93% CPU SLUB Without patch 704879 tps at 95% CPU With patch 775278 tps at 92% CPU I believe both show good benfits with patch, and it actually looks like the impact is more pronounced for SLAB. I would also note, that we have actually already internally patched __netdev_alloc_skb to do local node allocation which we have been running in production for quite some time. 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists