netdev - Re: 32 core net-next stack/netfilter "scaling"

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: <497F5F86.9010101@hp.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:24:54 -0800
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Netfilter Developers <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Linux Network Development list <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Subject: Re: 32 core net-next stack/netfilter "scaling"

>> I will give it a try and let folks know the results - unless told 
>> otherwise, I will ass-u-me I only need rerun the "full_iptables" test 
>> case.
> 
> 
> The runemomniagg2.sh script is still running, but the initial cycles 
> profile suggests that the main change is converting the write_lock time 
> into spinlock contention time with 78.39% of the cycles spent in 
> ia64_spinlock_contention. When the script completes I'll upload the 
> profiles and the netperf results to the same base URL as in the basenote 
> under "contrack01/"

The script completed - although at some point I hit an fd limit - I think I have 
an fd leak in netperf somewhere :( .

Anyhow, there are still some netperfs that end-up kicking the bucket during the 
run - I suspect starvation because where in the other configs (no iptables, and 
empty iptables) each netperf seems to consume about 50% of a CPU - stands to 
reason - 64 netperfs, 32 cores - in the "full" case I see many netperfs consuming 
100% of a CPU.  My gut is thinking that one or more netperf contexts gets stuck 
doing something on behalf of others.  There is also ksoftirqd time for a few of 
those processes.

Anyhow, the spread on trans/s/netperf is now 600 to 500 or 6000, which does 
represent an improvement.

rick jones

PS - just to be certain that running-out of fd's didn't skew the results I'm 
rerunning the script with ulimit -n 10240 and will see if that changes the 
results any.  And I suppose I need to go fd leak hunting in netperf omni code :(
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html