[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53ED5573.3030507@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:33:55 -0700
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Performance regression on kernels 3.10 and newer
On 08/14/2014 04:48 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Here is the thing
>
> nh_pcpu_rth_output is a per cpu cache.
>
> But nh_rth_input is not, because we did not optimize the case where dst
> has to be refcounted, yet.
>
> Rationale is explained in d26b3a7c4b3b26319f18bb645de93eba8f4bdcd5
> ("ipv4: percpu nh_rth_output cache")
>
> If you guys really believe we should have a percpu dst, go for it, but
> again, if the softirq handler runs on a different cpu than the
> application thread, it wont work.
>
> And, given 72 core servers are now on the way, we'll consume more ram,
> for netperf users.
Heck, we've had >= 72 core servers for *years* - go back to the
Itanium-based Superdome servers for example, and I suspect some of their
Power-based contemporaries. They just weren't plentiful. After that,
there were/are the 8-socket x86 boxes from various vendors, and now the
BL920s.
I will not claim that netperf represents all apps. Neither will I claim
it represents most apps. But I won't accept that it represents no apps :)
And if there is a reasonably clean way to introduce epoll/poll/select
into netperf I'm willing to consider it.
happy benchmarking,
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists