From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2% regression
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2016 15:41:42 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161009074142.GA9546@aaronlu.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADvbK_f7ihdJJvxmmBNA7_1fV2=eyxEqCQztm7LKz+vp8rSHig@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2108 bytes --]
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 10:32:04AM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> wrote:
> > On 08/23/2016 05:44 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> >> Em 19-08-2016 04:24, Aaron Lu escreveu:
> >>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:19:39AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Em 19-08-2016 02:29, Aaron Lu escreveu:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> It doesn't look insane and sctp_wait_for_sndbuf may actually have
> >>>>> something to do with a larger sctp_chunk I suppose?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The same perf record doesn't capture any sample for the good commit,
> >>>>> which suggests the nerperf process doesn't sleep in sctp_wait_for_sndbuf.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ahhh yes! It does, and then it would mean your txbuf is too small for the
> >>>> chunk sizes you're using (sctp tests option -m).
> >>>>
> >>>> What's your netperf cmdline again please?
> >>>
> >>> netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1
> >>>
> >>> Is the 10K used here a problem? If so, can you suggest a proper value
> >>> for our netperf performance test? Thanks.
> >>
> >> We're still working on this. Xin could reproduce it on an i3 too, but
> >> I'm afraid this commit just unmasked an issue in there. You're
> >> overloading the CPU by too much when spawning 8 parallel netperf's on a
> >> 4-core system, seems that commit a6c2f79287 was that last rock that made
> >> it slip into a precipice. sctp's cwnd and rwnd management are not as
> >> good as tcp's and now it seems you're triggering a corner case.
> >>
> >> I hope to have more soon.
> >
> > I wonder if there is any update on this issue?
> >
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
>
> be4947b sctp: change to check peer prsctp_capable when using prsctp polices
> 0605483 sctp: remove prsctp_param from sctp_chunk
> 73dca12 sctp: move sent_count to the memory hole in sctp_chunk
>
> These three commit can avoid this issue by recovering sctp_chunk size.
Thanks for the update, I just confirmed the throughput is back on my
desktop.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
To: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>,
kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
lkp@01.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2% regression
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 15:41:42 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161009074142.GA9546@aaronlu.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADvbK_f7ihdJJvxmmBNA7_1fV2=eyxEqCQztm7LKz+vp8rSHig@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 10:32:04AM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> wrote:
> > On 08/23/2016 05:44 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> >> Em 19-08-2016 04:24, Aaron Lu escreveu:
> >>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:19:39AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Em 19-08-2016 02:29, Aaron Lu escreveu:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> It doesn't look insane and sctp_wait_for_sndbuf may actually have
> >>>>> something to do with a larger sctp_chunk I suppose?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The same perf record doesn't capture any sample for the good commit,
> >>>>> which suggests the nerperf process doesn't sleep in sctp_wait_for_sndbuf.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ahhh yes! It does, and then it would mean your txbuf is too small for the
> >>>> chunk sizes you're using (sctp tests option -m).
> >>>>
> >>>> What's your netperf cmdline again please?
> >>>
> >>> netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1
> >>>
> >>> Is the 10K used here a problem? If so, can you suggest a proper value
> >>> for our netperf performance test? Thanks.
> >>
> >> We're still working on this. Xin could reproduce it on an i3 too, but
> >> I'm afraid this commit just unmasked an issue in there. You're
> >> overloading the CPU by too much when spawning 8 parallel netperf's on a
> >> 4-core system, seems that commit a6c2f79287 was that last rock that made
> >> it slip into a precipice. sctp's cwnd and rwnd management are not as
> >> good as tcp's and now it seems you're triggering a corner case.
> >>
> >> I hope to have more soon.
> >
> > I wonder if there is any update on this issue?
> >
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
>
> be4947b sctp: change to check peer prsctp_capable when using prsctp polices
> 0605483 sctp: remove prsctp_param from sctp_chunk
> 73dca12 sctp: move sent_count to the memory hole in sctp_chunk
>
> These three commit can avoid this issue by recovering sctp_chunk size.
Thanks for the update, I just confirmed the throughput is back on my
desktop.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-09 7:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-27 1:54 [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2% regression kernel test robot
2016-07-27 1:54 ` [lkp] " kernel test robot
2016-07-28 7:01 ` Xin Long
2016-07-28 7:01 ` [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-05 3:31 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-05 3:31 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-05 11:53 ` Xin Long
2016-08-05 11:53 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-08 2:10 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-08 2:10 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 2:38 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 2:38 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 8:02 ` Xin Long
2016-08-16 8:02 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-16 8:30 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 8:30 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 8:51 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 8:51 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 9:56 ` Xin Long
2016-08-16 9:56 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-17 5:04 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 5:04 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 5:34 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 5:34 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-17 5:34 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 5:34 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 5:41 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 5:41 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-17 6:14 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 6:14 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 6:37 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 6:37 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 6:42 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 6:42 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 7:35 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 7:35 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-17 7:42 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 7:42 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 7:53 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 7:53 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 8:02 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 8:02 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-17 8:48 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 8:48 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 8:58 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 8:58 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-17 9:20 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 9:20 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 18:06 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 18:06 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-18 3:21 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-18 3:21 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-18 12:45 ` Xin Long
2016-08-18 12:45 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-19 5:29 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-19 5:29 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-19 7:19 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-08-19 7:19 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-08-19 7:24 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-19 7:24 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-22 21:44 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-08-22 21:44 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-08-23 9:19 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-23 9:19 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-09-30 7:05 ` Aaron Lu
2016-09-30 7:05 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-10-03 2:32 ` Xin Long
2016-10-03 2:32 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-10-09 7:41 ` Aaron Lu [this message]
2016-10-09 7:41 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 18:34 ` Xin Long
2016-08-16 18:34 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161009074142.GA9546@aaronlu.sh.intel.com \
--to=aaron.lu@intel.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.