Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: speedup udp receive path

[jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2089 bytes --]


On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 06:09 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:


> I dont see in your results the number of pps, number of udp ports,
> number of flows.

My test scenario is still the same: send 1M packets of 8 flows
round-robin at 750Kpps. Repeat test 4-6 times and average out. 8 flows
map to 8 cpus. Any rate above 750Kpps and the driver starts dropping.
The flows are {Fixed dst IP, fixed src IP, fixed src port, 8 variable
dst port}. ip_rcv and friends show up in profile as we have already
discussed - but i dont want to change the test characteristic because i
cant do fair backward comparison. Also i use rps mask ee to use all the
cpus except the core doing demux (core 0).
In the results when i say "udp sink 90%" it means 90% of 750Kpps was
successfuly received by the app (on the multiple cpus).

> In my latest results, I can handle more pps than before, regardless of
> rps being on or off, 

Same here - even in my worst case scenario 88.5% of 750Kpps > 600Kpps.
Attached is history results to make more sense of what i am saying:
we have net-next kernels from apr14, apr23, apr23 with changlis change,
apr28, apr28 with your change. What you'll see is non-rps (blue) gets
better and rps (Orange) gets better slowly then by apr28 it is worse.

> and with various number of udp ports (one user
> thread per port), number of flows (many src addr so that rps spread
> packets on many cpus)
> 

This is true for me except for non rps getting relatively better and rps
getting worse in plain net-next for Apr 28. Sorry, dont have time to
dissect where things changed but i figured if i reported it will point
to something obvious.

> If/when contention windows are smaller, cpu can run uncontended, and can
> consume more cycles to process more frames ?
> 
> With a non yet published patch, I even can reach 600.000 pps in DDOS
> situations, instead of 400.000.

So my tests are simpler. What i was hoping to see was at minimum rps
maintains its gap of 6-7% more capacity. I dont mind seeing
rps get better. If both rps and non-rps get better that even more
interesting.

cheers,
jamal

[-- Attachment #2: rps-hist.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/pdf, Size: 212033 bytes --]