From: rapier <rapier@psc.edu>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Question] TCP stack performance decrease since 3.14
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:38:21 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <552EDA4D.7040308@psc.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1429131712.7346.144.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
On 4/15/15 5:01 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 15:31 -0400, rapier wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> First, my apologies if this came up previously but I couldn't find
>> anything using a keyword search of the mailing list archive.
>>
>> As part of the on going work with web10g I need to come up with baseline
>> TCP stack performance for various kernel revision. Using netperf and
>> super_netperf* I've found that performance for TCP_CC, TCP_RR, and
>> TCP_CRR has decreased since 3.14.
>>
>> 3.14 3.18 4.0 decrease %
>> TCP_CC 183945 179222 175793 4.4%
>> TCP_RR 594495 585484 561365 5.6%
>> TCP_CRR 98677 96726 93026 5.7%
>>
>> Stream tests have remained the same from 3.14 through 4.0.
>>
>> All tests were conducted on the same platform from clean boot with stock
>> kernels.
>>
>> So my questions are:
>>
>> Has anyone else seen this or is this a result of some weirdness on my
>> system or artifact of my tests?
>>
>> If others have seen this or is just simply to be expected (from new
>> features and the like) is it due to the TCP stack itself or other
>> changes in the kernel?
>>
>> If so, is there anyway to mitigate the effect of this via stack tuning,
>> kernel configuration, etc?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> * The above results are the average of 10 iterations of super_netperf
>> for each test. I can run more iterations to verify the results but it
>> seem consistent. The number of parallel processes for each test was
>> tuned to produce the maximum test result. In other words, enough to push
>> things but not enough to cause performance hits due to being
>> cpu/memory/etc bound. If anyone wants the full results and test scripts
>> just let me know.
>> --
>
> Make sure you do not hit a c-state issue.
>
> I've seen improvements in the stack translate to longer wait times, and
> cpu takes longer to exit deep c-state.
I believe I properly disabled CPU power management in the bios (the
lenovo bios isn't terribly clear on this). I then booted with
processor.max_cstate=1 idle=poll (also tried with
intel_idle.max_cstate=0 and combinatiosn thereof). Still seeing reduced
performance in comparison to 3.14. I'll try using /dev/cpu_dma_latency
instead when I get in tomorrow. If you have other suggestions to verify
c-state I'd be happy to hear them.
As a note, 3.2 tests as being more than 18% faster in the above categories.
Chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-15 21:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-15 19:31 [Question] TCP stack performance decrease since 3.14 rapier
2015-04-15 21:01 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 21:38 ` rapier [this message]
2015-04-15 22:13 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-04-15 21:31 ` Rick Jones
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=552EDA4D.7040308@psc.edu \
--to=rapier@psc.edu \
--cc=eric.dumazet@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.