[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTillCVWMHHBImGEeRYy2MJYqtGIvSPvacLKJnpP2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:37:59 -0700
From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Very low latency TCP for clusters
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le lundi 19 juillet 2010 à 11:44 -0700, Tom Herbert a écrit :
>
>> I see about 7 usecs as best number on loopback, so I believe this is
>> in the ballpark. As I mentioned above, this about "best case" latency
>> of a single thread, so we assume any amount of pinning or other
>> customized configuration to that purpose.
>
> Well, given I get 29 us on a ping between two machines (Gb link, no
> process involved on receiver, only softirq), I really doubt we can reach
> 5 us on a tcp test involving a user process on both side ;)
>
That's pretty pokey ;-) I see numbers around 25 usecs between to
machines, this is with TCP_NBRR. With TCP_RR it's more like 35 usecs,
so eliminating the scheduler is already a big reduction. That leaves
18 usecs in device time, interrupt processing, network, and cache
misses; 7 usecs in TCP processing, user space. While 5 usecs is an
aggressive goal, I am not ready to concede that there's an
architectural limit in either NICs, TCP, or sockets that can't be
overcome.
--
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