[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190517112003.02b130b2@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 11:20:03 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To: Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Lemon <bsd@...com>,
Maciej Fijalkowski <maciejromanfijalkowski@...il.com>,
"Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 0/7] busy poll support for AF_XDP sockets
On Thu, 16 May 2019 14:37:51 +0200, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> Applications
> method cores irqs txpush rxdrop l2fwd
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> r-t-c 2 y 35.9 11.2 8.6
> poll 2 y 34.2 9.4 8.3
> r-t-c 1 y 18.1 N/A 6.2
> poll 1 y 14.6 8.4 5.9
> busypoll 2 y 31.9 10.5 7.9
> busypoll 1 y 21.5 8.7 6.2
> busypoll 1 n 22.0 10.3 7.3
Thanks for the numbers! One question that keeps coming to my mind
is how do the cases compare on zero drop performance?
When I was experimenting with AF_XDP it seemed to be slightly more
prone to dropping packets than expected. I wonder if you're seeing
a similar thing (well drops or back pressure to the traffic generator)?
Perhaps the single core busy poll would make a difference there?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists