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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:57:22 +0100 From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> Cc: 'Marek Majkowski' <marek@...udflare.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, brouer@...hat.com Subject: Re: epoll_wait() performance On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 16:37:01 +0000 David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote: > From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer > > Sent: 28 November 2019 11:12 > ... > > > Can you test recv() as well? > > > > Sure: https://github.com/netoptimizer/network-testing/commit/9e3c8b86a2d662 > > > > $ sudo taskset -c 1 ./udp_sink --port 9 --count $((10**6*2)) > > run count ns/pkt pps cycles payload > > recvMmsg/32 run: 0 2000000 653.29 1530704.29 2351 18 demux:1 > > recvmsg run: 0 2000000 631.01 1584760.06 2271 18 demux:1 > > read run: 0 2000000 582.24 1717518.16 2096 18 demux:1 > > recvfrom run: 0 2000000 547.26 1827269.12 1970 18 demux:1 > > recv run: 0 2000000 547.37 1826930.39 1970 18 demux:1 > > > > > I think it might be faster than read(). > > > > Slightly, but same speed as recvfrom. > > I notice that you recvfrom() code doesn't request the source address. > So is probably identical to recv(). Created a GitHub issue/bug on this: https://github.com/netoptimizer/network-testing/issues/5 Feel free to fix this and send a patch/PR. -- 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