linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 2/3] net/udp: Add 4-tuple hash list basis

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: <bd4e9e18-caf8-45eb-9b53-8bc5fc24e925@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:47:35 +0800
From: Philo Lu <lulie@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
 edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, dsahern@...nel.org,
 antony.antony@...unet.com, steffen.klassert@...unet.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com,
 jakub@...udflare.com, fred.cc@...baba-inc.com,
 yubing.qiuyubing@...baba-inc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 2/3] net/udp: Add 4-tuple hash list basis



On 2024/10/16 15:45, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 10/16/24 08:30, Philo Lu wrote:
>> On 2024/10/14 18:07, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>> It would be great if you could please share some benchmark showing the
>>> raw max receive PPS performances for unconnected sockets, with and
>>> without this series applied, to ensure this does not cause any real
>>> regression for such workloads.
>>>
>>
>> Tested using sockperf tp with default msgsize (14B), 3 times for w/ and
>> w/o the patch set, and results show no obvious difference:
>>
>> [msg/sec]  test1    test2    test3    mean
>> w/o patch  514,664  519,040  527,115  520.3k
>> w/  patch  516,863  526,337  527,195  523.5k (+0.6%)
>>
>> Thank you for review, Paolo.
> 
> Are the value in packet per seconds, or bytes per seconds? Are you doing 
> a loopback test or over the wire? The most important question is: is the 
> receiver side keeping (at least) 1 CPU fully busy? Otherwise the test is 
> not very relevant.
> 

It's in packet per seconds (msg/sec). I make the cpu fully busy by 
binding the nic irq the same cpu with the server socket. The consumption 
is like:

%Cpu0:
3.0 us,  35.0 sy,  0.0 ni,  0.0 id,  0.0 wa,  7.0 hi,  55.0 si,  0.0 st

> It looks like you have some setup issue, or you are using a relatively 
> low end H/W: the expected packet rate for reasonable server H/W is well 
> above 1M (possibly much more than that, but I can't put my hands on 
> recent H/W, so I can't provide a more accurate figure).
> 
> A single socket, user-space, UDP sender is usually unable to reach such 
> tput without USO, and even with USO you likely need to do an over-the- 
> wire test to really be able to keep the receiver fully busy. AFAICS 
> sockperf does not support USO for the sender.
> 
> You could use the udpgso_bench_tx/udpgso_bench_rx pair from the net 
> selftests directory instead.
> 

Thank you for your suggestion. I'll try it to see if I can get higher pps.
-- 
Philo