[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1320673364.3020.21.camel@bwh-desktop>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:42:44 +0000
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: Paweł Staszewski <pstaszewski@...are.pl>,
Linux Network Development list <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux Route Cache performance tests
On Sun, 2011-11-06 at 20:38 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le dimanche 06 novembre 2011 à 20:20 +0100, Paweł Staszewski a écrit :
[...]
> > So the point of this test was figure out how much of route cache entries
> > Linux can handle without dropping performance.
>
> No need to even do a bench, its pretty easy to understand how a hash
> table is handled.
>
> Allowing long chains is not good.
>
> With your 512k slots hash table, you cannot expect handling 1.4M routes
> with optimal performance. End of story.
>
> Since route hash table is allocated at boot time, only way to change its
> size is using "rhash_entries=2097152" boot parameter.
>
> If it still doesnt fly, try with "rhash_entries=4194304"
A routing cache this big is not going to fit in the processor caches,
anyway; in fact even the hash table may not. So a routing cache hit is
likely to involve processor cache misses. After David's work to make
cacheless operation faster, I suspect that such a 'hit' can be a net
loss. But it *is* necessary to run a benchmark to answer this (and the
answer will obviously vary between systems).
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
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