[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100419.130905.210660275.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc: therbert@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] rfs: Receive Flow Steering
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:10:33 +0200
> Le vendredi 16 avril 2010 à 23:12 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
>> My results are on a "tbench 16" on an dual X5570 @ 2.93GHz.
>> (16 logical cpus)
>>
>> No RPS , no RFS : 4448.14 MB/sec
>> RPS : 2298.00 MB/sec (but lot of variation)
>> RFS : 2600 MB/sec
>>
>> Maybe my RFS setup is bad ?
>> (8192 flows)
>>
>
> With attached patch, I reached
>
> Throughput 4465.13 MB/sec 16 procs
>
> RFS better than no RPS/RFS :)
>
> So, the old idea to make rxhash consistent (same value in both
> directions) is a win for some workloads (Consider connection tracking /
> firewalling)
Fun :-) I toyed around with this on my 128 cpu machine (2 NUMA
nodes, 64 cpus each NUMA node).
Vanilla net-next-2.6, no configuration changes:
tbench 64: Throughput 1843.43 MB/sec 64 procs
tbench 128: Throughput 1889.67 MB/sec 128 procs
Vanilla net-next-2.6, rps_cpus="ffffffff,ffffffff,ffffffff,ffffffff"
tbench 64: Throughput 1455.89 MB/sec 64 procs
tbench 128: Throughput 2009.91 MB/sec 128 procs
net-next-2.6 + Eric's port hashing patch, rps_cpus="ffffffff,ffffffff,ffffffff,ffffffff"
tbench 64: Throughput 1593.13 MB/sec 64 procs
tbench 128: Throughput 2367.27 MB/sec 128 procs
--
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