netdev - RE: >10% performance degradation since 2.6.18

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]

Date:	Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:57:09 -0700
From:	"Ma, Chinang" <chinang.ma@...el.com>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
CC:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"arjan@...radead.org" <arjan@...radead.org>,
	"jens.axboe@...cle.com" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Styner, Douglas W" <douglas.w.styner@...el.com>,
	"Prickett, Terry O" <terry.o.prickett@...el.com>,
	"Wilcox, Matthew R" <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: RE: >10% performance degradation since 2.6.18



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matthew Wilcox [mailto:matthew@....cx]
>Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:42 AM
>To: Ma, Chinang
>Cc: Rick Jones; Herbert Xu; Jeff Garzik; andi@...stfloor.org;
>arjan@...radead.org; jens.axboe@...cle.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
>Styner, Douglas W; Prickett, Terry O; Wilcox, Matthew R;
>netdev@...r.kernel.org; Brandeburg, Jesse
>Subject: Re: >10% performance degradation since 2.6.18
>
>On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 10:36:11AM -0700, Ma, Chinang wrote:
>> For OLTP workload we are not pushing much network throughput. Lower
>network latency is more important for OLTP performance. For the original
>Nehalem 2 sockets OLTP result in this mail thread, we bound the two NIC
>interrupts to cpu1 and cpu9 (one NIC per sockets). Database processes are
>divided into two groups and pinned to socket and each processe only
>received request from the NIC it bound to. This binding scheme gave us >1%
>performance boost pre-Nehalem date. We also see positive impact on this NHM
>system.
>
>So you've tried spreading the four RX and TX interrupts for each card
>out over, say, CPUs 1, 3, 5, 7 for eth1 and then 9, 11, 13, 15 for eth0,
>and it produces worse performance than having all four tied to CPUs 1
>and 9?  Interesting.

I was comparing 2 NIC on 2 sockets to 2 NIC on the same socket. I have not tried spreading out the interrupt for a NIC to cpus in the same sockets. Is there good reason for trying this?

 
>
>Can you try changing IGB_MAX_RX_QUEUES (in drivers/net/igb/igb.h, about
>line 60) to 1, and seeing if performance improves that way?
>

I suppose this should wait until we find out whether spread out NIC interrupt in socket helps or not.

>--
>Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
>"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
>operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
>a retrograde step."
--
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