netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: speedup udp receive path

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:17:41 -0400
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, therbert@...gle.com,
	shemminger@...tta.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Eilon Greenstein <eilong@...adcom.com>,
	Brian Bloniarz <bmb@...enacr.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: speedup udp receive path

On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 14:45 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> 
> Changli, I wonder how you can cook "performance" patches without testing
> them at all for real... This cannot be true ?

Eric, I am with you, however you are in the minority of people who test
and produce numbers ;-> The system rewards people for sending patches
not much for anything else - so i cant blame Changli ;->

> When the cpu doing the device softirq is flooded, it handles 300 packets
> per net_rx_action() round (netdev_budget), so sends at most 6 ipis per
> 300 packets, with or without my patch, with or without your patch as
> well.
> 
> (At most because if remote cpus are flooded as well, they dont
> napi_complete so no IPI needed at all)
>
> (My patch had an effect only on normal load, ie one packet received in a
> while... up to 50.000 pps I would say). And it also has a nice effect on
> non RPS loads (mostly the more typical load for following years).
> If a second packet comes 3us after the first one, and before 2nd CPU
> handled it, we _can_ afford an extra IPI.
> 
> 750.000/50 = 15.000 IPI per second.

Could we have some stat in there that shows IPIs being produced? I think
it would help to at least observe any changes over variety of tests.
I did try to patch my system during the first few tests to record IPIs
but it seems to make more sense to have it as a perf stat.

> Even with 200.000 IPI per second, 'perf top -C CPU_IPI_sender' shows
> that sending IPI is very cheap (maybe ~1% of cpu cycles)
> 
> # Samples: 32033467127
> #

One thing i observed is our profiles seem different. Could you send me
your .config for a single nehalem and i will try to go as close as
possible to it? I have a sky2 instead of bnx - but i suspect everything
else will be very similar...
I apologize i dont have much time to look into details - but what i can
do is test at least.

cheers,
jamal



--
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