From: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>
To: Chris Mi <chrism@mellanox.com>
Cc: "dsahern@gmail.com" <dsahern@gmail.com>,
"marcelo.leitner@gmail.com" <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"gerlitz.or@gmail.com" <gerlitz.or@gmail.com>,
"stephen@networkplumber.org" <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [patch iproute2 v6 0/3] tc: Add -bs option to batch mode
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 14:31:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180108133150.GE14358@orbyte.nwl.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR0501MB2143606CB34C5486C3632881AB130@VI1PR0501MB2143.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <VI1PR0501MB2143DEEBE30BA02E4ED129C0AB130@VI1PR0501MB2143.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Chris,
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 02:03:53AM +0000, Chris Mi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 04:34:51PM +0900, Chris Mi wrote:
> > > The insertion rate is improved more than 10%.
> >
> > Did you measure the effect of increasing batch sizes?
> Yes. Even if we enlarge the batch size bigger than 10, there is no big improvement.
> I think that's because current kernel doesn't process the requests in parallel.
> If kernel processes the requests in parallel, I believe specifying a bigger batch size
> will get a better result.
But throughput doesn't regress at some point, right? I think that's the
critical aspect when considering an "unlimited" batch size.
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 08:00:00AM +0000, Chris Mi wrote:
> After testing, I find that the message passed to kernel should not be too big.
> If it is bigger than about 64K, sendmsg returns -1, errno is 90 (EMSGSIZE).
> That is about 400 commands. So how about set batch size to 128 which is big enough?
If that's the easiest way, why not. At first, I thought one could maybe
send the collected messages in chunks of suitable size, but that's
probably not worth the effort.
Cheers, Phil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-08 13:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-04 7:34 [patch iproute2 v6 0/3] tc: Add -bs option to batch mode Chris Mi
2018-01-04 7:34 ` [patch iproute2 v6 1/3] lib/libnetlink: Add a function rtnl_talk_msg Chris Mi
2018-01-05 17:50 ` David Ahern
2018-01-09 6:44 ` Chris Mi
2018-01-04 7:34 ` [patch iproute2 v6 2/3] tc: Add -bs option to batch mode Chris Mi
2018-01-05 14:03 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-01-05 18:15 ` David Ahern
2018-01-05 19:14 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-01-09 6:45 ` Chris Mi
2018-01-04 7:34 ` [patch iproute2 v6 3/3] man: Add -bs option to tc manpage Chris Mi
2018-01-05 12:20 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-01-05 17:25 ` [patch iproute2 v6 0/3] tc: Add -bs option to batch mode Phil Sutter
2018-01-05 17:27 ` David Ahern
2018-01-05 18:45 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-01-08 2:03 ` Chris Mi
2018-01-08 4:00 ` David Ahern
2018-01-08 8:00 ` Chris Mi
2018-01-08 15:40 ` Stephen Hemminger
2018-01-09 1:49 ` Chris Mi
2018-01-08 13:31 ` Phil Sutter [this message]
2018-01-09 1:21 ` Chris Mi
2018-01-09 2:35 ` Chris Mi
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=20180108133150.GE14358@orbyte.nwl.cc \
--to=phil@nwl.cc \
--cc=chrism@mellanox.com \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=gerlitz.or@gmail.com \
--cc=marcelo.leitner@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.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.