[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1298912869.2941.687.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:07:49 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...radead.org>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, rick.jones2@...com,
therbert@...gle.com, wsommerfeld@...gle.com,
daniel.baluta@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SO_REUSEPORT - can it be done in kernel?
Le lundi 28 février 2011 à 11:37 -0500, Thomas Graf a écrit :
> How do you measure the qps? The output of queryperf? That is not always
> accurate. I run rdnc stats twice and then calculate the qps based on the
> counter "queries resulted in successful answer" diff and timestamp diff.
>
I have some custom ethernet/system monitoring package installed, so I
get packet rates from it.
I appears my two source machines were not fast enough. (One had LOCKDEP
kernel).
I now reach 320 kqps, even if I force NIC interrupts through one cpu
only.
> The numbers differ a lot depending on the architecture we test on.
>
> F.e. on a 12 core AMD with 2 NUMA nodes:
>
> 2.6.32 named -n 1: 37.0kqps
> named: 3.8kqps (yes, no joke, the socket receive buffer is
> always full and the kernel drops pkts)
Yes, this old kernel miss commit c377411f2494a93 added in 2.6.35
(net: sk_add_backlog() take rmem_alloc into account)
Quoting the change log :
Under huge stress from a multiqueue/RPS enabled NIC, a single flow udp
receiver can now process ~200.000 pps (instead of ~100 pps before the
patch) on a 8 core machine.
>
> 2.6.38-rc5+ with Herbert's patches:
> named -n 1: 36.9kqps
> named: 222.0kqps
--
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