netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: allocate skbs on local node

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, 14 Oct 2010 08:31:01 -0700
From:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michael Chan <mchan@...adcom.com>,
	Eilon Greenstein <eilong@...adcom.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: allocate skbs on local node

> This is all conspicuously hand-wavy and unquantified.  (IOW: prove it!)
>
> The mooted effects should be tested for on both slab and slub, I
> suggest.  They're pretty different beasts.
> --

Some results running netper TCP_RR test with 200 instances, 1 byte
request and response on 16 core AMD using bnx2x with one 16 queues,
one for each CPU.

SLAB

Without patch 553570 tps at 86% CPU
With patch 791883 tps at 93% CPU

SLUB

Without patch 704879 tps at 95% CPU
With patch 775278 tps at 92% CPU

I believe both show good benfits with patch, and it actually looks
like the impact is more pronounced for SLAB.  I would also note, that
we have actually already internally patched __netdev_alloc_skb to do
local node allocation which we have been running in production for
quite some time.

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