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]
Date:	Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:16:16 -0400
From:	jamal <>
To:	Krishna Kumar2 <>
Cc:	Gagan Arneja <>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <>,,
	Rick Jones <>,
	Sridhar Samudrala <>,
	David Miller <>,
	Robert Olsson <>
Subject: Re: [WIP][PATCHES] Network xmit batching


On Thu, 2007-07-06 at 14:12 +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> I have run only once instead of
> taking any averages, so there could be some spurts/drops.

Would be nice to run three sets - but i think even one would be
sufficiently revealing.
> These results are based on the test script that I sent earlier today. I
> removed the results for UDP 32 procs 512 and 4096 buffer cases since
> the BW was coming >line speed (infact it was showing 1500Mb/s and
> 4900Mb/s respectively for both the ORG and these bits). 

I expect UDP to overwhelm the receiver. So the receiver needs a lot more
tuning (like increased rcv socket buffer sizes to keep up, IMO).

But yes, the above is an odd result - Rick any insight into this?

> I am not sure
> how it is coming this high, but netperf4 is the only way to correctly
> measure multiple process combined BW. Another thing to do is to disable
> pure performance fixes in E1000 (eg changing THRESHOLD to 128 and
> some other changes like Erratum workaround or MSI, etc) which are
> independent of this functionality. Then a more accurate performance
> result is possible when comparing org vs batch code, without mixing in
> unrelated performance fixes which skews the results (either positively
> or negatively :).

I agree that THRESHOLD change needs to be the same for a fair
comparison. Note however, it is definetely a tuning parameter which is a
fundamental aspect of this batching exercise (historically this was
added to e1000 because i found it useful in my 2006 batch experiments).
When all the dust settles we should be able to pick a value that is
Would it be useful if i made this a boot/module parameter? It should
have been actually.

The erratum changes - I am not so sure; the ->prep_xmit() is a
fundamental aspect and it needs to run lockless; the erratum forces us
to run with a lock. In any case, I dont think that affects your chip.

> Each iteration consists of running buffer sizes 8, 32, 128, 512, 4096.

It seems to me any runs with buffer less than 512B are unable to fill
the pipe - so will not really benefit (will probably do with nagling).
However, the < 512 B should show equivalent results before and after the
You can try to turn off _BTX feature in the driver and see if they are
the same. If they are not, then the suspect change will be easy to find.
When i turned off the _BTX changes i saw no difference with pktgen.
But that is a different code path.

> Summary : Average BW (whatever meaning that has) improved 0.65%, while
>                  Service Demand deteriorated 11.86%

Sorry, been many moons since i last played with netperf; what does "service
demand" mean?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists