| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <u2t65634d661004161342zeadb5602w73c369ec717dc6e1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:42:57 -0700 From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] rfs: Receive Flow Steering On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote: > Le vendredi 16 avril 2010 à 11:35 -0700, Tom Herbert a écrit : >> Results with "tbench 16" on an 8 core Intel machine. >> >> No RPS/RFS: 2155 MB/sec >> RPS (0ff mask): 1700 MB/sec >> RFS: 1097 >> Blah, I mistakingly reported that... should have been: No RPS/RFS: 2155 MB/sec RPS (0ff mask): 1097 MB/sec RFS: 1700 MB/sec Sorry about that! >> I am not particularly surprised by the results, using loopback >> interface already provides good parallelism and RPS/RFS really would >> only add overhead and more trips between CPUs (last part is why RPS < >> RFS I suspect)-- I guess this is why we've never enabled RPS on >> loopback :-) >> >> Eric, do you have a particular concern that this could affect a real workload? >> > > I was expecting RFS to be better than RPS at least, for this particular > workload (tcp over loopback) > This was my expectation too, and what my "corrected" numbers show :-) But, I take it this is different in your results? Tom -- 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