[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151202132511.GL23178@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:25:11 -0500
From: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ipsec impact on performance
On (12/02/15 12:41), David Laight wrote:
>
> Also what/how are you measuring cpu use.
> I'm not sure anything on Linux gives you a truly accurate value
> when processes are running for very short periods.
I was using mpstat, while running iperf. Should I be using
something else? or running it for longer intervals?
but I hope we are not doomed at 1 Gbps, or else security itself would
come at a very unattractive cost. Anyway, even aside from crypto.
we need to have some way to add TCP options (that depend on the
contents of the tcp header) etc post-GSO, in the interest of not
ossifying the stack.
> On an SMP system you also get big effects when work is switched
> between cpus. I've got some tests that run a lot faster if I
> put all but one of the cpus into a busy-loop in userspace
> (eg: while :; do :; done)!
yes Rick Jones also pointed the same thing to me, and one of the
things I was going to try out later today is to instrument the
effects of pinning irqs and iperf threads to a specific cpu.
--Sowmini
--
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