[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211116072735.68c104ee@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 07:27:35 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
Arjun Roy <arjunroy@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 17/20] tcp: defer skb freeing after socket lock
is released
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 07:22:02 -0800 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Here is the perf top profile on cpu used by user thread doing the
> recvmsg(), at 96 Gbit/s
>
> We no longer see skb freeing related costs, but we still see costs of
> having to process the backlog.
>
> 81.06% [kernel] [k] copy_user_enhanced_fast_string
> 2.50% [kernel] [k] __skb_datagram_iter
> 2.25% [kernel] [k] _copy_to_iter
> 1.45% [kernel] [k] tcp_recvmsg_locked
> 1.39% [kernel] [k] tcp_rcv_established
Huh, somehow I assumed your 4k MTU numbers were with zero-copy :o
Out of curiosity - what's the softirq load with 4k? Do you have an
idea what the load is on the CPU consuming the data vs the softirq
processing with 1500B ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists