linux-kernel - Re: This is the fourth time I’ve tried to find what led to the regression of outgoing network speed and each time I find the merge commit 8c94ccc7cd691472461448f98e2372c75849406c

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1126ed0a-bfc1-a752-1b5e-f1339d7a8aa5@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 11:25:20 +0200
From: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mikhail Gavrilov <mikhail.v.gavrilov@...il.com>
Cc: "Christian A. Ehrhardt" <lk@...e.de>, niklas.neronin@...ux.intel.com,
 Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: This is the fourth time I’ve tried to find what led to the regression of outgoing network speed and each time I find the merge commit 8c94ccc7cd691472461448f98e2372c75849406c

On 7.2.2024 13.55, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:39 PM Mathias Nyman
> <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Looks like your network adapter ends up interrupting CPU0 in the bad case due
>> to the change in how many interrupts are requested by xhci_hcd before it.
>>
>> bad case:
>>          CPU0    CPU1    ...     CPU31
>> 87:     18213809 0      ...     0       IR-PCI-MSIX-0000:0e:00.0    0-edge      enp14s0
>>
>> Does manually changing it to some other CPU help? picking one that doesn't already
>> handle a lot of interrupts. CPU0 could also in general be more busy, possibly spending
>> more time with interrupts disabled.
>>
>> For example change to CPU23 in the bad case:
>>
>> echo 800000 > /proc/irq/87/smp_affinity
>>
>> Check from proc/interrupts that enp14s0 interrupts actually go to CPU23 after this.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Mathias
>>
> 
> root@...ondary-ws ~# iperf3 -c primary-ws.local -t 5 -p 5000 -P 1
> Connecting to host primary-ws.local, port 5000
> [  5] local 192.168.1.130 port 49152 connected to 192.168.1.96 port 5000
> [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr  Cwnd
> [  5]   0.00-1.00   sec  70.9 MBytes   594 Mbits/sec    0    376 KBytes
> [  5]   1.00-2.00   sec  72.4 MBytes   607 Mbits/sec    0    431 KBytes
> [  5]   2.00-3.00   sec  73.1 MBytes   613 Mbits/sec    0    479 KBytes
> [  5]   3.00-4.00   sec  72.4 MBytes   607 Mbits/sec    0    501 KBytes
> [  5]   4.00-5.00   sec  73.2 MBytes   614 Mbits/sec    0    501 KBytes
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr
> [  5]   0.00-5.00   sec   362 MBytes   607 Mbits/sec    0             sender
> [  5]   0.00-5.00   sec   360 MBytes   603 Mbits/sec                  receiver
> 
> iperf Done.
> root@...ondary-ws ~# echo 800000 > /proc/irq/87/smp_affinity
> root@...ondary-ws ~# iperf3 -c primary-ws.local -t 5 -p 5000 -P 1
> Connecting to host primary-ws.local, port 5000
> [  5] local 192.168.1.130 port 37620 connected to 192.168.1.96 port 5000
> [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr  Cwnd
> [  5]   0.00-1.00   sec   111 MBytes   934 Mbits/sec    0    621 KBytes
> [  5]   1.00-2.00   sec   109 MBytes   913 Mbits/sec    0    621 KBytes
> [  5]   2.00-3.00   sec   110 MBytes   920 Mbits/sec    0    621 KBytes
> [  5]   3.00-4.00   sec   110 MBytes   924 Mbits/sec    0    621 KBytes
> [  5]   4.00-5.00   sec   109 MBytes   917 Mbits/sec    0    621 KBytes
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr
> [  5]   0.00-5.00   sec   549 MBytes   921 Mbits/sec    0             sender
> [  5]   0.00-5.00   sec   547 MBytes   916 Mbits/sec                  receiver
> 
> iperf Done.
> 
> Very interesting, is CPU0 slower than CPU23 by 30%?
> 

My guess is that CPU0 spends more time with interrupts disabled than other CPUs.
Either because it's handling interrupts from some other hardware, or running
code that disables interrupts (for example kernel code inside spin_lock_irq),
and thus not able to handle network adapter interrupts at the same rate as CPU23

Thanks
Mathias