All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: vethpair creation performance, 3.14 versus 4.2.0
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:48:04 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55E4AF74.7030107@hp.com> (raw)

On 08/29/2015 10:59 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
 > Please note that similar overhead was also reported while creating
 > veth pairs  https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/19/556


That got me curious, so I took the veth pair creation script from there, 
and started running it out to 10K pairs, comparing a 3.14.44 kernel with 
a 4.2.0-rc4+ from net-next and then net-next after pulling to get the 
snmp stat aggregation perf change (4.2.0-rc8+).

Indeed, the 4.2.0-rc8+ kernel with the change was faster than the 
4.2.0-rc4+ kernel without it, but both were slower than the 3.14.44 kernel.

I've put a spreadsheet with the results at:

ftp://ftp.netperf.org/vethpair/vethpair_compare.ods

A perf top for the 4.20-rc8+ kernel from the net-next tree looks like 
this out around 10K pairs:

    PerfTop:   11155 irqs/sec  kernel:94.2%  exact:  0.0% [4000Hz 
cycles],  (all, 32 CPUs)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     23.44%  [kernel]       [k] vsscanf
      7.32%  [kernel]       [k] mutex_spin_on_owner.isra.4
      5.63%  [kernel]       [k] __memcpy
      5.27%  [kernel]       [k] __dev_alloc_name
      3.46%  [kernel]       [k] format_decode
      3.44%  [kernel]       [k] vsnprintf
      3.16%  [kernel]       [k] acpi_os_write_port
      2.71%  [kernel]       [k] number.isra.13
      1.50%  [kernel]       [k] strncmp
      1.21%  [kernel]       [k] _parse_integer
      0.93%  [kernel]       [k] filemap_map_pages
      0.82%  [kernel]       [k] put_dec_trunc8
      0.82%  [kernel]       [k] unmap_single_vma
      0.78%  [kernel]       [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
      0.71%  [kernel]       [k] menu_select
      0.65%  [kernel]       [k] clear_page
      0.64%  [kernel]       [k] _raw_spin_lock
      0.62%  [kernel]       [k] page_fault
      0.60%  [kernel]       [k] find_busiest_group
      0.53%  [kernel]       [k] snprintf
      0.52%  [kernel]       [k] int_sqrt
      0.46%  [kernel]       [k] simple_strtoull
      0.44%  [kernel]       [k] page_remove_rmap

My attempts to get a call-graph have been met with very limited success. 
  Even though I've installed the dbg package from "make deb-pkg" the 
symbol resolution doesn't seem to be working.

happy benchmarking,

rick jones

             reply	other threads:[~2015-08-31 19:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-31 19:48 Rick Jones [this message]
2015-08-31 21:29 ` vethpair creation performance, 3.14 versus 4.2.0 David Ahern
2015-08-31 21:31   ` Rick Jones
2015-08-31 23:04 ` 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=55E4AF74.7030107@hp.com \
    --to=rick.jones2@hp.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.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.