netdev - Re: SO_REUSEPORT - can it be done in kernel?

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: <1298661495.14113.152.camel@tardy>
Date:	Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:18:15 -0800
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...radead.org>
Cc:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
	Bill Sommerfeld <wsommerfeld@...gle.com>,
	Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SO_REUSEPORT - can it be done in kernel?

On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 07:56 -0500, Thomas Graf wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 01:32:25PM -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
> > Yes, we are still planning this.  The UDP implementation for my
> > earlier patch should be usable to try for DNS/UDP-- this is in fact
> > where we saw a major performance gain.  Eric Dumazet had some nice
> > improvements that should probably be looked at also.
> 
> I can confirm this.
> 
> Serious scalability issues have been reported on a 12 core system
> running bind 9.7-2. The system was only able to deliver ~110K queries
> per second.
> 
> Using your SO_REUSEPORT patch and a modified bind using it. The same
> system is able to deliver ~650K queries per seconds while maxing out
> all cores completely.

I think the idea is goodness, but will ask, was the (first) bottleneck
actually in the kernel, or was it in bind itself?  I've seen
single-instance, single-byte burst-mode netperf TCP_RR do in excess of
300K transactions per second (with TCP_NODELAY set) on an X5560 core.

ftp://ftp.netperf.org/netperf/misc/dl380g6_X5560_rhel54_ad386_cxgb3_1.4.1.2_b2b_to_same_agg_1500mtu_20100513-2.csv

and that was with now ancient RHEL5.4 bits...  yes, there is a bit of
apples, oranges and kumquats but still, I am wondering if this didn't
also "work around" some internal BIND scaling issues as well.

rick jones

> 
> Tom, Bill: do you have a timeline for merging this? Especially the
> UDP bits?
> 
> -Thomas
> --
> 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


--
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