From: "Linus Lüssing" <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue>
To: tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Performance impact with multiple pcap handlers on Linux
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 23:05:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201222220533.GA5758@otheros> (raw)
Hi,
I was experimenting a bit with migrating from the use of
pcap_offline_filter() to pcap_setfilter().
I was a bit surprised that installing for instance 500 pcap
handlers with a BPF rule "arp" via pcap_setfilter() reduced
the TCP performance of iperf3 over veth interfaces from 73.8 Gbits/sec
to 5.39 Gbits/sec. Using only one or even five handlers seemed
fine (71.7 Gbits/sec and 70.3 Gbits/sec).
Is that expected?
Full test setup description and more detailed results can be found
here: https://github.com/lemoer/bpfcountd/pull/8
Regards, Linus
PS: And I was also surprised that there seems to be a limit of
only 510 pcap handlers on Linux.
reply other threads:[~2020-12-22 22:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=20201222220533.GA5758@otheros \
--to=linus.luessing@c0d3.blue \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox