netdev - Re: [PATCH] mlx4_en: map entire pages to increase throughput

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]

Date:	Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:08:30 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"yevgenyp@...lanox.co.il" <yevgenyp@...lanox.co.il>,
	"ogerlitz@...lanox.com" <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	"amirv@...lanox.com" <amirv@...lanox.com>,
	"brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"leitao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <leitao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"klebers@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <klebers@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"anton@...ba.org" <anton@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mlx4_en: map entire pages to increase throughput

I was thinking more along the lines of an additional comparison,
explicitly using netperf TCP_RR or something like it, not just the
packets per second from a bulk transfer test.

rick
--
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

> I used a uperf profile that is similar to TCP_RR. It writes, then reads
> some bytes. I kept the TCP_NODELAY flag.
>
> Without the patch, I saw the following:
>
> packet size	ops/s		Gb/s
> 1		337024		0.0027
> 90		276620		0.199
> 900		190455		1.37
> 4000		68863		2.20
> 9000		45638		3.29
> 60000		9409		4.52
>
> With the patch:
>
> packet size	ops/s		Gb/s
> 1		451738		0.0036
> 90		345682		0.248
> 900		272258		1.96
> 4000		127055		4.07
> 9000		106614		7.68
> 60000		30671		14.72
>

So, on the surface it looks like it did good things for PPS, though it 
would be nice to know what the CPU utilizations/service demands were as 
a sanity check - does uperf not have that sort of functionality?

I'm guessing there were several writes at a time - the 1 byte packet 
size (sic - that is payload, not packet, and without TCP_NODELAY not 
even payload necessarily) How many writes does it have outstanding 
before it does a read?  And does it take care to build-up to that number 
of writes to avoid batching during slowstart, even with TCP_NODELAY set?

rick jones
--
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