[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+mtBx_4u0xi0eqQ1H4Vn=GmFgppbgMWz8SypYD6dpoD+Dxk_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:26:02 -0700
From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: Use Toeplitz for IPv4 and IPv6 connection hashing
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Stephen Hemminger
<stephen@...workplumber.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
> Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> Toeplitz
>> IPv4
>> 58.72% CPU utilization
>> 110/146/198 90/95/99% latencies
>> 1.72549e+06 tps
>> IPv6
>> 72.38% CPU utilization
>> 117/168/255 90/95/99% latencies
>> 1.58545e+06 tps
>>
>> Jhash
>> IPv4
>> 57.67% CPU utilization
>> 111/146/196 90/95/99% latencies
>> 1.71574e+06 tps
>> IPv6
>> 71.84% CPU utilization
>> 117/166/248 90/95/99% latencies
>> 1.59359e+06 tps
>
> It looks slower and more complex than Jhash, what is the benefit?
> Have you investigated using Murmur instead?
Benefit would be to leverage and be compatible HW hash computation...
perhaps this is just an intellectual curiosity :-)
--
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