[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1291131776.21077.27.camel@bwh-desktop>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:42:56 +0000
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bonding, GRO and tcp_reordering
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 22:55 +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to share what is a rather pleasing,
> though to me somewhat surprising result.
>
> I am testing bonding using balance-rr mode with three physical links to try
> to get > gigabit speed for a single stream. Why? Because I'd like to run
> various tests at > gigabit speed and I don't have any 10G hardware at my
> disposal.
>
> The result I have is that with a 1500 byte MTU, tcp_reordering=3 and both
> LSO and GSO disabled on both the sender and receiver I see:
>
> # netperf -c -4 -t TCP_STREAM -H 172.17.60.216 -- -m 1472
> TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 172.17.60.216
> (172.17.60.216) port 0 AF_INET
> Recv Send Send Utilization Service Demand
> Socket Socket Message Elapsed Send Recv Send Recv
> Size Size Size Time Throughput local remote local remote
> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/s % S % U us/KB us/KB
>
> 87380 16384 1472 10.01 1646.13 40.01 -1.00 3.982 -1.000
>
> But with GRO enabled on the receiver I see.
>
> # netperf -c -4 -t TCP_STREAM -H 172.17.60.216 -- -m 1472
> TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 172.17.60.216
> (172.17.60.216) port 0 AF_INET
> Recv Send Send Utilization Service Demand
> Socket Socket Message Elapsed Send Recv Send Recv
> Size Size Size Time Throughput local remote local remote
> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/s % S % U us/KB us/KB
>
> 87380 16384 1472 10.01 2613.83 19.32 -1.00 1.211 -1.000
>
> Which is much better than any result I get tweaking tcp_reordering when
> GRO is disabled on the receiver.
Did you also enable TSO/GSO on the sender?
What TSO/GSO will do is to change the round-robin scheduling from one
packet per interface to one super-packet per interface. GRO then
coalesces the physical packets back into a super-packet. The intervals
between receiving super-packets then tend to exceed the difference in
delay between interfaces, hiding the reordering.
If you only enabled GRO then I don't understand this.
> Tweaking tcp_reordering when GRO is enabled on the receiver seems to have
> negligible effect. Which is interesting, because my brief reading on the
> subject indicated that tcp_reordering was the key tuning parameter for
> bonding with balance-rr.
>
> The only other parameter that seemed to have significant effect was to
> increase the mtu. In the case of MTU=9000, GRO seemed to have a negative
> impact on throughput, though a significant positive effect on CPU
> utilisation.
[...]
Increasing MTU also increases the interval between packets on a TCP flow
using maximum segment size so that it is more likely to exceed the
difference in delay.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
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