All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@diku.dk>
Cc: netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: finer grained nf_conn locking
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:23:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <49D27BD9.4030503@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0903312145130.2954@ask.diku.dk>

Jesper Dangaard Brouer a écrit :
> 
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Jesper Dangaard Brouer a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jesper Dangaard Brouer a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>>>>>  "tbench 8" results on my 8 core machine (32bit kernel, with
>>>>>>>  conntracking on) : 2319 MB/s instead of 2284 MB/s
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you achieve this impressing numbers?
>>>>> Is it against localhost? (10Gbit/s is max 1250 MB/s)
>>>>
>>>> tbench is a tcp test on localhost yes :)
>>>
>>> I see!
>>>
>>> Using a Sun 10GbE NIC I was only getting a throughput of 556.86 MB/sec
>>> with 64 procs (between an AMD Phenom X4 and a Core i7).  (Not tuned
>>> multi queues yet ...)
>>>
>>> Against localhost I'm getting (not with applied patch):
>>>
>>>  1336.42 MB/sec on my AMD phenom X4 9950 Quad-Core Processor
>>>
>>>  1552.81 MB/sec on my Core i7 920 (4 physical cores, plus 4 threads)
>>
>> Strange results, compared to my E5420 (I thought i7 was faster ??)
>>
>>>  2274.53 MB/sec on my dual CPU Xeon E5420 (8 cores)
> 
> I tried using "netperf" instead of "tbench".
> 
> A netperf towards localhost (netperf -T 0,1 -l 120 -H localhost)
> reveals that the Core i7 is still the fastest.
> 
> 24218 Mbit/s  on Core i7 920
> 
> 11684 Mbit/s  on Phenom X4
> 
>  8181 Mbit/s  on Xeon E5420

warning, because on my machine, 

cpu0 is on physical id 0, core 0
cpu1 is on physical id 1, core 0
cpu2 is on physical id 0, core 1
cpu3 is on physical id 1, core 1
cpu3 is on physical id 0, core 2
cpu4 is on physical id 1, core 2
cpu5 is on physical id 0, core 3
cpu6 is on physical id 1, core 3

So -T 0,1 might not do what you think...

$ netperf -T 0,1 -l 120 -H localhost
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to localhost.localdomain (127.0.0.1) port 0 AF_INET : cpu bind
Recv   Send    Send
Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/sec

 87380  16384  16384    120.00   7423.16
$ netperf -T 0,2 -l 120 -H localhost
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to localhost.localdomain (127.0.0.1) port 0 AF_INET : cpu bind
Recv   Send    Send
Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/sec

 87380  16384  16384    120.00   9360.17



> 
> A note to Rick, the process "netperf" would use 100% CPU time and
> "netserver" would only use 70%.



  reply	other threads:[~2009-03-31 20:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 88+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-02-18  5:19 [RFT 0/4] Netfilter/iptables performance improvements Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-18  5:19 ` [RFT 1/4] iptables: lock free counters Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-18 10:02   ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-19 19:47   ` [PATCH] " Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-19 23:46     ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-19 23:56       ` Rick Jones
2009-02-20  1:03         ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-20  1:18           ` Rick Jones
2009-02-20  9:42             ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-20 22:57               ` Rick Jones
2009-02-21  0:35                 ` Rick Jones
2009-02-20  9:37       ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-20 18:10       ` [PATCH] iptables: xt_hashlimit fix Eric Dumazet
2009-02-20 18:33         ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-02-28  1:54           ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-02-28  6:56             ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-28  8:22               ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-02-24 14:31         ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-27 14:02       ` [PATCH] iptables: lock free counters Eric Dumazet
2009-02-27 16:08         ` [PATCH] rcu: increment quiescent state counter in ksoftirqd() Eric Dumazet
2009-02-27 16:08           ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-27 16:34           ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-02 10:55         ` [PATCH] iptables: lock free counters Patrick McHardy
2009-03-02 17:47           ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-02 21:56             ` Patrick McHardy
2009-03-02 22:02               ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-03-02 22:07                 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-03-02 22:17                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-03-02 22:27                 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-18  5:19 ` [RFT 2/4] Add mod_timer_noact Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-18  9:20   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18  9:30     ` David Miller
2009-02-18 11:01       ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 11:39         ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-02-18 12:37           ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 12:33         ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 21:39         ` David Miller
2009-02-18 21:51           ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 22:04             ` David Miller
2009-02-18 22:42               ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-02-18 22:47                 ` David Miller
2009-02-18 22:56                   ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-18 10:07     ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 12:05       ` [patch] timers: add mod_timer_pending() Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 12:33         ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 12:50           ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 12:54             ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 13:47               ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 17:00         ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-02-18 18:23           ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 18:58             ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-02-18 19:24               ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18 10:29   ` [RFT 2/4] Add mod_timer_noact Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18  5:19 ` [RFT 3/4] Use mod_timer_noact to remove nf_conntrack_lock Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-18  9:54   ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 11:05   ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-02-18 11:08     ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 14:01   ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-18 14:04     ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 14:22       ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-18 14:27         ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18  5:19 ` [RFT 4/4] netfilter: Get rid of central rwlock in tcp conntracking Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-18  9:56   ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 14:17     ` Eric Dumazet
2009-02-19 22:03       ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-03-28 16:55       ` [PATCH] netfilter: finer grained nf_conn locking Eric Dumazet
2009-03-29  0:48         ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-03-30 19:57           ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-30 20:05             ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-06 12:07               ` Patrick McHardy
2009-04-06 12:32                 ` Jan Engelhardt
2009-04-06 17:25                   ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-03-30 18:57         ` Rick Jones
2009-03-30 19:20           ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-30 19:38           ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2009-03-30 19:54             ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-30 20:34               ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2009-03-30 20:41                 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-30 21:25                   ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2009-03-30 22:44                   ` Rick Jones
2009-03-31 19:52                   ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2009-03-31 20:23                     ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2009-03-31 20:35                       ` Rick Jones
2009-03-31 20:52                       ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2009-02-18 21:55     ` [RFT 4/4] netfilter: Get rid of central rwlock in tcp conntracking David Miller
2009-02-18 23:23       ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-18 23:35         ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-02-18  8:30 ` [RFT 0/4] Netfilter/iptables performance improvements Eric Dumazet

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=49D27BD9.4030503@cosmosbay.com \
    --to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
    --cc=hawk@diku.dk \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rick.jones2@hp.com \
    /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.