From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Naruto Nguyen <narutonguyen2018@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Significant capacity drop on loopback interface
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 07:58:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180510075840.12840865@xeon-e3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANpxKHFZPEOgE21oPM2WHF97jhD8w3-N-wdycSPEnOeMPwREsQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 10 May 2018 15:35:59 +0700
Naruto Nguyen <narutonguyen2018@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Recently, I used netperf to test the TCP performance on loopback
> interface on my 2 nodes, one is installed kernel 4.4.103 and the other
> is 3.12.61
>
> netperf -l 100 -t TCP_RR
> netperf -l 100 -t TCP_RR -- -D
>
> In both cases, I see that the throughput on 4.4.103 is about just 1/2
> in comparing with 3.12.61 node
>
> # netperf -l 100 -t TCP_RR
> MIGRATED TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0
> AF_INET to localhost () port 0 AF_INET : first burst 0
> Local /Remote
> Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans.
> Send Recv Size Size Time Rate
> bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec
>
> 16384 87380 1 1 100.00 37714.68
> 16384 87380
>
>
> netperf -l 100 -t TCP_RR
> MIGRATED TCP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0
> AF_INET to localhost () port 0 AF_INET : first burst 0
> Local /Remote
> Socket Size Request Resp. Elapsed Trans.
> Send Recv Size Size Time Rate
> bytes Bytes bytes bytes secs. per sec
>
> 16384 87380 1 1 100.00 64038.41
> 16384 87380
>
>
> When running tcpdump to capture all packets in loopback interface, I
> see that during 200s capture, the number of packets on loopback of
> 4.4.103 is double the number of packets in 3.12.61? Could you please
> let me know if it can cause the low throughput as above? Do we have
> any tuning for TCP on loopback to improve the performace (actually the
> low throughput also happens with UDP) or if we have any known
> performance issue in 4.4 kernel on loopback?
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Brs,
> Naruto
This might just be the increased overhead of KPTI to fix Spectre/Meltdown.
Loopback is very sensitive to syscall overhead.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-10 14:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-10 8:35 Significant capacity drop on loopback interface Naruto Nguyen
2018-05-10 14:58 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
[not found] ` <CANpxKHFKqL+n596Liw7kzJpV3K+CqT9o+R9ynNoy+rPDwj1YNA@mail.gmail.com>
2018-05-10 15:18 ` Stephen Hemminger
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=20180510075840.12840865@xeon-e3 \
--to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=narutonguyen2018@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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.