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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CH3PR11MB734547B820C475A465BA6D94FC779@CH3PR11MB7345.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 07:03:43 +0000 From: "Zhang, Cathy" <cathy.zhang@...el.com> To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com> CC: "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, "Srinivas, Suresh" <suresh.srinivas@...el.com>, "You, Lizhen" <lizhen.you@...el.com>, "eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: Keep sk->sk_forward_alloc as a proper size > -----Original Message----- > From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 2:18 AM > To: Chen, Tim C <tim.c.chen@...el.com> > Cc: Zhang, Cathy <cathy.zhang@...el.com>; edumazet@...gle.com; > davem@...emloft.net; kuba@...nel.org; pabeni@...hat.com; Brandeburg, > Jesse <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>; Srinivas, Suresh > <suresh.srinivas@...el.com>; You, Lizhen <lizhen.you@...el.com>; > eric.dumazet@...il.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-mm@...ck.org; > cgroups@...r.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: Keep sk->sk_forward_alloc as a proper > size > > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 11:04 AM Chen, Tim C <tim.c.chen@...el.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > >> Run memcached with memtier_benchamrk to verify the optimization > > >> fix. 8 server-client pairs are created with bridge network on > > >> localhost, server and client of the same pair share 28 logical CPUs. > > >> > > > >Results (Average for 5 run) > > > >RPS (with/without patch) +2.07x > > > > > > > > >Do you have regression data from any production workload? Please keep > in mind that many times we (MM subsystem) accepts the regressions of > microbenchmarks over complicated optimizations. So, if there is a real > production regression, please be very explicit about it. > > > > Though memcached is actually used by people in production. So this isn't > an unrealistic scenario. > > > > Yes, memcached is used in production but I am not sure anyone runs 8 pairs > of server and client on the same machine for production workload. Anyways, > we can discuss, if needed, about the practicality of the benchmark after we > have some impactful memcg optimizations. The test is run on platform with 224 CPUs (HT enabled). It's not a must to run 8 pairs, the memcg charge hot paths can be observed if we run only one pair but with more CPUs. Leverage all CPU resources on TCP connection to stress contentions. > > > Tim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists