From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=clzQ8zH/qteNY2ziXnDhyRswhQ1gBjGCdVLBcPyXWmI=; b=LI515JRy8F1D5qm8g67FjIy0mN9St968bj+slMm282EUM3PlMTYXCh6f6O53JF0QcU 8jwlBbSgZduFrARzaZSMXtd1A1fw/7Hj5wH8NC2NJqBeXJKO/qngGOFApEzdU8t7H1/0 9TdKcEwibgcbI7EUa9fCbkQ/1AUg4P048pXbGgZxRE5rPhuXIJ+cXZK4j9BFmjH27o6/ xxaHaB6WFf50H0Xn64GazpjXBoG4uxbE8dtg6nRt4ON0zNdQsn39UwgqjPBNptud33aw 9aMbYaja+mGaYPNzXh/W/qo6CSjs01H2txk32YyOfm3rZDaK0wfyu5qDrS4zgt4MwQhU 3fOg== Message-ID: <54F982B5.90108@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 11:34:29 +0100 From: Imre Palik MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1424705163-13428-1-git-send-email-imrep.amz@gmail.com> <20150223160619.GF24297@breakpoint.cc> <54EEF32D.2010202@amazon.de> <20150226.113431.238255529591339000.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20150226.113431.238255529591339000.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Bridge] [RFC PATCH v2] bridge: make it possible for packets to traverse the bridge without hitting netfilter List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: David Miller , 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 On 02/26/15 17:34, David Miller wrote: > From: Imre Palik > 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754572AbbCFKet (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2015 05:34:49 -0500 Received: from mail-we0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:37978 "EHLO mail-we0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932082AbbCFKem (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2015 05:34:42 -0500 Message-ID: <54F982B5.90108@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 11:34:29 +0100 From: Imre Palik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Miller , 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 References: <1424705163-13428-1-git-send-email-imrep.amz@gmail.com> <20150223160619.GF24297@breakpoint.cc> <54EEF32D.2010202@amazon.de> <20150226.113431.238255529591339000.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20150226.113431.238255529591339000.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/26/15 17:34, David Miller wrote: > From: Imre Palik > 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