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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091001150343.GU3361@ghostprotocols.net>
Date:	Thu, 1 Oct 2009 12:03:43 -0300
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
To:	Nir Tzachar <nir.tzachar@...il.com>
Cc:	Linux Networking Development Mailing List 
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Ziv Ayalon <ziv@...al.co.il>
Subject: Re: [RFCv4 PATCH 2/2] net: Allow protocols to provide an
	unlocked_recvmsg socket method

Em Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:49:39AM +0200, Nir Tzachar escreveu:
> Hi Arnaldo
> 
> I have repeated the tests using net-next on top of linus' git tree (I
> hope I got it right..) and the patches you sent me. Things did not get
> better, and in most cases were even worse; the recvmmsg parts
> distinctly showed better throughput, but the latency has more than
> doubled.

Interesting... Now the socket lock is held in recvmmsg over all of
udp_recvmmsg for the batch size while when not using unlocked_recvmmsg,
so I think one needs to carefully set the timeout parameter. Perhaps
we'll need to do something like tcp_rcvmmsg does, that is, to call
release_sock + lock_sock to process the backlog in the middle of a
recvmmsg call.
 
> The simplest test of using a batch size of 1 results with recvmmsg's
> latency over 1000 micro, while regular recvmsg is around 450 micro.
> (note that to use 1 packet there is a small bug in the reg_recv which
> needs to be fixed. Namely, change ret = -1 to ret = 0). On the
> previous system config -- part 0001 of the patch, on top of 2.6.31 --
> the latency of a single packet batch is 370 micro.
> 
> So, there seems to be a regression with the kernel tree I am using, or
> with part 0002 of the path. I'll try running the net-next with only
> part 1 of the patch and report.

Yeah, trying with only part 0001 should get you back to the previous
results, but try using it in nonblocking mode and tweaking the timeout
parameter in recvmmsg.

- Arnaldo
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ