[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170107113133.227f3c29@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 11:31:33 +0100
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, brouer@...hat.com,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH] net: reduce cycles spend on ICMP replies that
gets rate limited
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 22:10:42 -0500 (EST)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> BTW Eric, you asked about kmalloc() allocation, you were CC:'d in the
> patch which did this :-)
>
> commit 9a99d4a50cb8ce516adf0f2436138d4c8e6e4535
> Author: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
> Date: Sun Jun 2 15:00:52 2013 +0000
>
> icmp: avoid allocating large struct on stack
>
> struct icmp_bxm is a large struct, reduce stack usage
> by allocating it on heap.
>
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Did a quick revert, and tested again. It is not the major bottleneck,
but we do save something. The major bottleneck is still the call to
__ip_route_output_key_hash (invoked by icmp_route_lookup).
Single flow improvement from 1719182 pps to 1783368 pps.
- 64186 pps
- (1/1783368-1/1719182)*10^9 = -20.93 nanosec
* 4GHz approx = 20.93*4 = 83.72 cycles
The optimal SLUB fast-path on this machine is 54 cycles(tsc) 13.557 ns,
thus the saving is actually higher than expected. But low compared to
avoiding the icmp_route_lookup.
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists