netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 1/1 V4] qdisc: bulk dequeue support for qdiscs with TCQ_F

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]

Message-ID: <20140925165738.646d0783@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:57:38 +0200
From:	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Cc:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
	Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 
	<toke@...e.dk>, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
	Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 1/1 V4] qdisc: bulk dequeue support for qdiscs
 with TCQ_F_ONETXQUEUE

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:40:33 -0700
Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:

> A few test results in patch 0 are good. I like to have results for
> with and without patch. These should two things: 1) Any regressions
> caused by the patch 2) Performance gains (in that order of importance
> :-) ). There doesn't need to be a lot here, just something reasonably
> representative, simple, and should be easily reproducible. My
> expectation in bulk dequeue is that we should see no obvious
> regression and hopefully an improvement in CPU utilization-- are you
> able to verify this?

We are saving 3% CPU, as I described in my post with subject:
"qdisc/UDP_STREAM: measuring effect of qdisc bulk dequeue":
 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/331152/focus=331154

Using UDP_STREAM on 1Gbit/s driver igb, I can show that the
_raw_spin_lock calls are reduced with approx 3%, when enabling
bulking of just 2 packets.

This test can only demonstrates a CPU usage reduction, as the
throughput is already at maximum link (bandwidth) capacity.

Notice netperf option "-m 1472" which makes sure we are not sending
UDP IP-fragments::

 netperf -H 192.168.111.2 -t UDP_STREAM -l 120 -- -m 1472

Results from perf diff::

 # Command: perf diff
 # Event 'cycles'
 # Baseline  Delta    Symbol
 # no-bulk   bulk(1)
 # ........  .......  .........................................
 #
     7.05%   -3.03%  [k] _raw_spin_lock
     6.34%   +0.23%  [k] copy_user_enhanced_fast_string
     6.30%   +0.26%  [k] fib_table_lookup
     3.03%   +0.01%  [k] __slab_free
     3.00%   +0.08%  [k] intel_idle
     2.49%   +0.05%  [k] sock_alloc_send_pskb
     2.31%   +0.30%  netperf  [.] send_omni_inner
     2.12%   +0.12%  netperf  [.] send_data
     2.11%   +0.10%  [k] udp_sendmsg
     1.96%   +0.02%  [k] __ip_append_data
     1.48%   -0.01%  [k] __alloc_skb
     1.46%   +0.07%  [k] __mkroute_output
     1.34%   +0.05%  [k] __ip_select_ident
     1.29%   +0.03%  [k] check_leaf
     1.27%   +0.09%  [k] __skb_get_hash

A nitpick is that, this testing were done on V2 of the patchset.

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Sr. Network Kernel Developer at Red Hat
  Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
--
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