| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:39:06 +0200 From: Paweł Staszewski <pstaszewski@...are.pl> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> CC: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>, Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@...rsen.dk>, zhigang gong <zhigang.gong@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Strange packet drops with heavy firewalling W dniu 2010-04-13 14:53, Eric Dumazet pisze: > Le mardi 13 avril 2010 à 14:33 +0200, Paweł Staszewski a écrit : > >> W dniu 2010-04-13 01:18, Changli Gao pisze: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Benny Amorsen<benny+usenet@...rsen.dk> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> 99: 24 1306226 3 2 PCI-MSI-edge eth1-tx-0 >>>> 100: 15735 1648774 3 7 PCI-MSI-edge eth1-tx-1 >>>> 101: 8 11 9 1083022 PCI-MSI-edge eth1-tx-2 >>>> 102: 0 0 0 0 PCI-MSI-edge eth1-tx-3 >>>> 103: 18 15 6131 1095383 PCI-MSI-edge eth1-rx-0 >>>> 104: 217 32 46544 1335325 PCI-MSI-edge eth1-rx-1 >>>> 105: 154 1305595 218 16 PCI-MSI-edge eth1-rx-2 >>>> 106: 17 16 8229 1467509 PCI-MSI-edge eth1-rx-3 >>>> 107: 0 0 1 0 PCI-MSI-edge eth1 >>>> 108: 2 14 15 1003053 PCI-MSI-edge eth0-tx-0 >>>> 109: 8226 1668924 478 487 PCI-MSI-edge eth0-tx-1 >>>> 110: 3 1188874 17 12 PCI-MSI-edge eth0-tx-2 >>>> 111: 0 0 0 0 PCI-MSI-edge eth0-tx-3 >>>> 112: 203 185 5324 1015263 PCI-MSI-edge eth0-rx-0 >>>> 113: 4141 1600793 153 159 PCI-MSI-edge eth0-rx-1 >>>> 114: 16242 1210108 436 3124 PCI-MSI-edge eth0-rx-2 >>>> 115: 267 4173 19471 1321252 PCI-MSI-edge eth0-rx-3 >>>> 116: 0 1 0 0 PCI-MSI-edge eth0 >>>> >>>> >>>> irqbalanced seems to have picked CPU1 and CPU3 for all the interrupts, >>>> which to my mind should cause the same problem as before (where CPU1 and >>>> CPU3 was handling all packets). Yet the box clearly works much better >>>> than before. >>>> >>>> >>> irqbalanced? I don't think it can work properly. Try RPS in netdev and >>> linux-next tree, and if cpu load isn't even, try this patch: >>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/49915/ . >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Yes without irqbalance - and with irq affinity set by hand router will >> work much better. >> >> But I don't think that RPS will help him - I make some tests with RPS >> and AFFINITY - results in attached file. >> Test router make traffic management (hfsc) for almost 9k users >> > Thanks for sharing Pawel. > > But obviously you are mixing apples and oranges. > > Are you aware that HFSC and other trafic shapers do serialize access to > data structures ? If many cpus try to access these structures in //, you > have a lot of cache line misses. HFSC is a real memory hog :( > > Thanks Eric for explanation why RPS is useless for traffic management routers. > Benny do have firewalling (highly parallelized these days, iptables was > well improved in this area), but no traffic control. > > Hmm so maybe better choice for traffic management is use iptables for "filter classification" instead of "u32 filters"- something like iptables CLASSIFY target > Anyway, Benny has now multiqueue devices, and therefore RPS will not > help him. I suggested RPS before his move to multiqueue, and multiqueue > is the most sensible way to improve things, when no central lock is > used. Every cpu can really work in //. > > > > -- > 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 > > > -- 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