From: Imre Palik <imrep.amz@gmail.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, imrep@amazon.de
Cc: nbd@openwrt.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, fw@strlen.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aliguori@amazon.com
Subject: Re: [Bridge] [RFC PATCH v2] bridge: make it possible for packets to traverse the bridge without hitting netfilter
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 11:34:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54F982B5.90108@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150226.113431.238255529591339000.davem@davemloft.net>
On 02/26/15 17:34, David Miller wrote:
> From: Imre Palik <imrep@amazon.de>
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:19:25 +0100
>
>> If you are looking for peculiarities in my setup then here they are:
>> I am on 4k pages, and perf is not working :-(
>> (I am trying to fix those too, but that is far from being a low hanging fruit.)
>> So my guess would be that the packet pipeline doesn't fit in the cache/tlb
>
> Pure specualtion until you can actually use perf to measure these
> things.
>
> And I don't want to apply patches which were designed based upon
> pure speculation.
>
I did performance measurements in the following way:
Removed those pieces of the packet pipeline that I don't necessarily need one-by-one. Then measured their effect on small packet performance.
This was the only part that produced considerable effect.
The pure speculation was about why the effect is more than 15% increase in packet throughput, although the code path avoided contains way less code than 15% of the packet pipeline. It seems, Felix Fietkau profiled similar changes, and found my guess well founded.
Now could anybody explain me what else is wrong with my patch? I run out of ideas what to improve.
Thanks
Imre
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Imre Palik <imrep.amz@gmail.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, imrep@amazon.de
Cc: fw@strlen.de, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
stephen@networkplumber.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aliguori@amazon.com,
nbd@openwrt.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] bridge: make it possible for packets to traverse the bridge without hitting netfilter
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 11:34:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54F982B5.90108@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150226.113431.238255529591339000.davem@davemloft.net>
On 02/26/15 17:34, David Miller wrote:
> From: Imre Palik <imrep@amazon.de>
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:19:25 +0100
>
>> If you are looking for peculiarities in my setup then here they are:
>> I am on 4k pages, and perf is not working :-(
>> (I am trying to fix those too, but that is far from being a low hanging fruit.)
>> So my guess would be that the packet pipeline doesn't fit in the cache/tlb
>
> Pure specualtion until you can actually use perf to measure these
> things.
>
> And I don't want to apply patches which were designed based upon
> pure speculation.
>
I did performance measurements in the following way:
Removed those pieces of the packet pipeline that I don't necessarily need one-by-one. Then measured their effect on small packet performance.
This was the only part that produced considerable effect.
The pure speculation was about why the effect is more than 15% increase in packet throughput, although the code path avoided contains way less code than 15% of the packet pipeline. It seems, Felix Fietkau profiled similar changes, and found my guess well founded.
Now could anybody explain me what else is wrong with my patch? I run out of ideas what to improve.
Thanks
Imre
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-06 10:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-23 15:26 [Bridge] [RFC PATCH v2] bridge: make it possible for packets to traverse the bridge without hitting netfilter Imre Palik
2015-02-23 15:26 ` Imre Palik
2015-02-23 16:06 ` [Bridge] " Florian Westphal
2015-02-23 16:06 ` Florian Westphal
2015-02-23 16:06 ` Florian Westphal
2015-02-26 10:19 ` [Bridge] " Imre Palik
2015-02-26 10:19 ` Imre Palik
2015-02-26 16:34 ` [Bridge] " David Miller
2015-02-26 16:34 ` David Miller
2015-02-26 16:34 ` David Miller
2015-03-06 10:34 ` Imre Palik [this message]
2015-03-06 10:34 ` Imre Palik
2015-03-06 14:29 ` [Bridge] " Pablo Neira Ayuso
2015-03-06 14:29 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2015-03-06 16:37 ` [Bridge] " Florian Westphal
2015-03-06 16:37 ` Florian Westphal
2018-03-09 15:31 ` [Bridge] " David Woodhouse
2018-03-09 15:31 ` David Woodhouse
2018-03-09 15:57 ` [Bridge] " David Miller
2018-03-09 15:57 ` David Miller
2018-03-09 16:15 ` [Bridge] " David Woodhouse
2018-03-09 16:15 ` David Woodhouse
2018-03-09 16:26 ` [Bridge] " Florian Westphal
2018-03-09 16:26 ` Florian Westphal
2015-03-06 17:49 ` [Bridge] " David Miller
2015-03-06 17:49 ` David Miller
2015-03-06 17:49 ` David Miller
2015-02-26 21:17 ` [Bridge] " Felix Fietkau
2015-02-26 21:17 ` Felix Fietkau
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=54F982B5.90108@gmail.com \
--to=imrep.amz@gmail.com \
--cc=aliguori@amazon.com \
--cc=bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=imrep@amazon.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nbd@openwrt.org \
--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.