From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Ahern Subject: Re: [patch iproute2 v6 0/3] tc: Add -bs option to batch mode Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 21:00:28 -0700 Message-ID: <0cbfcbf5-0b54-f810-1891-b0d34fe97c6d@gmail.com> References: <20180104073454.11867-1-chrism@mellanox.com> <20180105172523.GD14358@orbyte.nwl.cc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "gerlitz.or@gmail.com" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" To: Chris Mi , Phil Sutter , "marcelo.leitner@gmail.com" Return-path: Received: from mail-pg0-f53.google.com ([74.125.83.53]:46164 "EHLO mail-pg0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754987AbeAHEAa (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jan 2018 23:00:30 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id r2so4736510pgq.13 for ; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 20:00:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 1/7/18 7:03 PM, Chris Mi wrote: >> Did you measure the effect of increasing batch sizes? > Yes. Even if we enlarge the batch size bigger than 10, there is no big improvement. That will change over time so the tc command should allow auto-batching to work up to the message size limit. > I think that's because current kernel doesn't process the requests in parallel. > If kernel processes the requests in parallel, I believe specifying a bigger batch size > will get a better result. >> >> I wonder whether specifying the batch size is necessary at all. Couldn't batch >> mode just collect messages until either EOF or an incompatible command is >> encountered which then triggers a commit to kernel? This might simplify >> code quite a bit. > That's a good suggestion. Thanks for your time on this, Chris.