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, 25 Sep 2014 16:57:38 +0200 From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> To: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>, John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>, Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>, brouer@...hat.com Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 1/1 V4] qdisc: bulk dequeue support for qdiscs with TCQ_F_ONETXQUEUE On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:40:33 -0700 Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote: > A few test results in patch 0 are good. I like to have results for > with and without patch. These should two things: 1) Any regressions > caused by the patch 2) Performance gains (in that order of importance > :-) ). There doesn't need to be a lot here, just something reasonably > representative, simple, and should be easily reproducible. My > expectation in bulk dequeue is that we should see no obvious > regression and hopefully an improvement in CPU utilization-- are you > able to verify this? We are saving 3% CPU, as I described in my post with subject: "qdisc/UDP_STREAM: measuring effect of qdisc bulk dequeue": http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/331152/focus=331154 Using UDP_STREAM on 1Gbit/s driver igb, I can show that the _raw_spin_lock calls are reduced with approx 3%, when enabling bulking of just 2 packets. This test can only demonstrates a CPU usage reduction, as the throughput is already at maximum link (bandwidth) capacity. Notice netperf option "-m 1472" which makes sure we are not sending UDP IP-fragments:: netperf -H 192.168.111.2 -t UDP_STREAM -l 120 -- -m 1472 Results from perf diff:: # Command: perf diff # Event 'cycles' # Baseline Delta Symbol # no-bulk bulk(1) # ........ ....... ......................................... # 7.05% -3.03% [k] _raw_spin_lock 6.34% +0.23% [k] copy_user_enhanced_fast_string 6.30% +0.26% [k] fib_table_lookup 3.03% +0.01% [k] __slab_free 3.00% +0.08% [k] intel_idle 2.49% +0.05% [k] sock_alloc_send_pskb 2.31% +0.30% netperf [.] send_omni_inner 2.12% +0.12% netperf [.] send_data 2.11% +0.10% [k] udp_sendmsg 1.96% +0.02% [k] __ip_append_data 1.48% -0.01% [k] __alloc_skb 1.46% +0.07% [k] __mkroute_output 1.34% +0.05% [k] __ip_select_ident 1.29% +0.03% [k] check_leaf 1.27% +0.09% [k] __skb_get_hash A nitpick is that, this testing were done on V2 of the patchset. -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Sr. Network Kernel Developer at Red Hat Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer -- 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