netdev - Re: [patch iproute2] tc: add -bs option for batch mode

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: <106c1e7d-14fc-f375-ae0b-6b5eed63cd6d@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:13:45 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Chris Mi <chrism@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "gerlitz.or@...il.com" <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch iproute2] tc: add -bs option for batch mode

On 12/20/17 8:17 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:23:34 +0000
> Chris Mi <chrism@...lanox.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Your real performance win is just not asking for ACK for every rule.  
>> No. Even if batch_size > 1, we ack every rule. The real performance win is
>> to send multiple rules in one system call. If we are not asking for ACK for every rule,
>> the performance will be improved further.
> 
> Try the no ACK method.
> 
> When we were optimizing routing daemons like Quagga, it was discovered
> that an ACK for every route insert was the main bottleneck. Doing asynchronous
> error handling got a bigger win than your batching.
> 
> Please try that, doing multiple messages using iov is not necessary.
> 

FWIW, I plan to look at batching routes in a similar fashion.