[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55427F81.4080807@iogearbox.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 21:16:17 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
CC: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] net: move qdisc ingress filtering on top of netfilter
ingress hooks
On 04/30/2015 06:36 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
...
> But where are the barriers? These unfounded performance claims are
> simply absurd, qdisc ingress barely performs a bit better just because
> it executes a bit less code and only in the single CPU scenario with
> no rules at all.
I think we're going in circles a bit. :( You are right in saying that
currently, there's a central spinlock, which is worked on to get rid
of, you've seen the patch on the list floating around already. Single
CPU, artificial micro-benchmark, which were done show that you see on
your machine ~613Kpps to ~545Kpps, others have seen it more amplified
as 22.4Mpps to 18.0Mpps drop from __netif_receive_skb_core() up to an
empty dummy u32_classify() rule, which has already been acknowledged
that this gap needs to be improved. Lets call it unfounded then. I
think we wouldn't even have this discussion if we wouldn't try brute
forcing both worlds behind this single static key, or, have both
invoked from within the same layer/list.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
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