[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231016145337.4ZIt_sqL@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 16:53:37 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>,
juri.lelli@...hat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Come On Now <hawk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: Use SMP threads for backlog NAPI (or
optional).
On 2023-10-16 07:17:56 [-0700], Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 11:53:21 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > Do we have reason to believe nobody uses RPS?
> >
> > Not sure what you relate to. I would assume that RPS is used in general
> > on actual devices and not on loopback where backlog is used. But it is
> > just an assumption.
> > The performance drop, which I observed with RPS and stress-ng --udp, is
> > within the same range with threads and IPIs (based on memory). I can
> > re-run the test and provide actual numbers if you want.
>
> I was asking about RPS because with your current series RPS processing
> is forced into threads. IDK how well you can simulate the kind of
> workload which requires RPS. I've seen it used mostly on proxyies
> and gateways. For proxies Meta's experiments with threaded NAPI show
> regressions across the board. So "force-threading" RPS will most likely
> also cause regressions.
Understood.
Wandere/ Juri: Do you have any benchmark/ workload where you would see
whether RPS with IPI (now) vs RPS (this patch) shows any regression?
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists