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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1272917458.3926.8.camel@bigi>
Date:	Mon, 03 May 2010 16:10:58 -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 Sat, 2010-05-01 at 07:56 -0400, jamal wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-05-01 at 13:42 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> > But, whole point of epoll is to not change interest each time you get an
> > event.
> > 
> > Without EV_PERSIST, you need two more syscalls per recvfrom()
> > 
> > epoll_wait()
> >  epoll_ctl(REMOVE)
> >  epoll_ctl(ADD)
> >  recvfrom()
> > 
> > Even poll() would be faster in your case
> > 
> > poll(one fd)
> > recvfrom()
> > 
> 
> This is true - but my goal was/is to replicate the regression i was
> seeing[1]. 
> I will try with PERSIST next opportunity. If it gets better
> then it is something that needs documentation in the doc Tom
> promised ;->

I tried it with PERSIST and today's net-next and you are right:
rps was better compared with (99.4% vs 98.1% of 750Kpps).
If however i removed the PERSIST i.e both rps and non-rps
have two extra syscalls, again rps performed worse (93.2% vs 97.8%
of 750Kpps). Eric, I know the answer is not to do the non-PERSIST mode
for rps ;-> But lets just ignore that for a sec:
what the heck is going on? I would expect the degradation to be the same
for both non-rps. 
I also wanna do the broken record reminder that kernels before net-next
of Apr14 were doing about 97% (as opposed to 93% currently for same
test).

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