linux-kernel - RE: linux-next network throughput performance regression

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]

Message-ID: <eaea78c44de44abcb7936ab070f1b09d@HKXPR30MB0039.064d.mgd.msft.net>
Date:	Mon, 9 Nov 2015 03:11:35 +0000
From:	Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	"eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"dsa@...ulusnetworks.com" <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Simon Xiao <sixiao@...rosoft.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>
Subject: RE: linux-next network throughput performance regression

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 10:53
> To: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
> Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com; dsa@...ulusnetworks.com; Simon Xiao
> <sixiao@...rosoft.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Haiyang Zhang
> <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> devel@...uxdriverproject.org
> Subject: Re: linux-next network throughput performance regression
> 
> From: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 02:39:24 +0000
> 
> >> Throughput on a single TCP flow for a 40G NIC can be tricky to tune.
> > Why is a single TCP flow trickier than multiple TCP flows?
> > IMO it should be easier to analyze the issue of a single TCP flow?
> 
> Because a single TCP flow can only use one of the many TX queues
> that such modern NICs have.
> 
> The single TX queue becomes the bottleneck.
> 
> Whereas if you have several TCP flows, all of them can use independant
> TX queues on the NIC in parallel to fill the link with traffic.
> 
> That's why.

Thanks, David!
I understand 1 TX queue is the bottleneck (however in Simon's
test, TX=1 => 36.7Gb/s, TX=8 => 37.7 Gb/s, so it looks the TX=1 bottleneck
is not so obvious).
I'm just wondering how the bottleneck became much narrower with
recent linux-next in Simon's result (36.7 Gb/s vs. 18.2 Gb/s). IMO there
must be some latency somewhere.

Thanks,
-- Dexuan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/