netdev - Re: rps testing questions

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]

Message-ID: <AANLkTi=FBM0v0Cs+Mx4Qxddzm8XV3JzjiR64kRVLgs7H@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:34:08 +0800
From:	mi wake <wakemi.wake@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: rps testing questions

2011/1/17 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>:
> Le lundi 17 janvier 2011 à 17:43 +0800, mi wake a écrit :
>> I do a rps(Receive Packet Steering) testing on centos 5.5 with  kernel 2.6.37.
>> cpu: 8 core Intel.
>> ethernet adapter: bnx2x
>>
>> Problem statement:
>> enable rps with:
>> echo "ff" > /sys/class/net/eth2/queues/rx-0/rps_cpus.
>>
>
> bnx2x with one queue only ?
>
>> running 1 instances of netperf TCP_RR: netperf  -t TCP_RR -H 192.168.0.1 -c -C
>> without rps: 9963.48(Trans Rate per sec)
>> with rps:  9387.59(Trans Rate per sec)
>>
>> I do ab and tbench testing also find there is less tps with enable
>> rps.but,there is more cpu using when with enable rps.when with enable
>> rps ，softirqs is blanced  on cpus.
>
> Really ? that seems unlikely with your one flow test, unless you _also_
> have hardware IRQS hitting all your cpus. (That would be very bad)
>
>>
>> is there something wrong with my test？
>> --
>
> If you test with one flow, RPS brings nothing at all. Better handle the
> packet directly from the cpu handling the hardware IRQ (and NAPI)
>
> You better make sure hardware IRQ are on one cpu, instead of many cpus.
>
>
 I have checked that bnx2x with one queue only and hardware IRQ are on one cpu.
 I do testing again with more flows.when I use ip range from 192.x.x.1
to 192.x.x.200 to send syn packets.
Server can deal with :
 without rps + rfs : 18M/s
 with     rps +rfs : 21M/s.
Maybe  in previous tests,there are less flow. I will continue testing.
Thank you!
--
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