[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2b5f096a143f4dea9c9a2896913d8ca79688b00f.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 17:00:02 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: use indirect call wrappers for
skb_copy_datagram_iter()
On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 10:55 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On the UDP front this reminded me of another indirect function call
> without indirect call wrapper: getfrag in __ip_append_data.
>
> That is called for each datagram once per linear + once per page. That
> said, the noise in my quick RR test was too great to measure any
> benefit from the following.
Why an RR test ?
I think you should be able to measure some raw tput improvement with
large UDP GSO write towards a blackhole dst/or dropping ingress pkts
with XDP (just to be sure the bottle-neck is on the sender side).
> Paolo, did you happen to also look at that
> when introducing the indirect callers? Seems like it won't hurt to
> add.
Nope, sorry I haven't experimented that.
For the record, I have 2 others item on my list, I hope to have time to
process some day: the ingress dst->input and the default ->enqueue and
->dequeue
Cheers,
Paolo
p.s. feel free to move this on a different thread, as it fit you better
Powered by blists - more mailing lists