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
next 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.