Re: rps perfomance WAS(Re: rps: question

jamal
2010-04-26T11:35:16Z

On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:31 +0800, Changli Gao wrote:

> I read the code again, and find that we don't use spin_lock_irqsave(),
> and we use local_irq_save() and spin_lock() instead, so
> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave() and _raw_spin_lock_irqrestore() should not be
> related to backlog. the lock maybe sk_receive_queue.lock.

Possible.
I am wondering if there's a way we can precisely nail where that is
happening? is lockstat any use?
Fixing _raw_spin_lock_irqsave and friend is the lowest hanging fruit.

So looking at your patch now i see it is likely there was an improvement
made for non-rps case (moving out of loop some irq_enable etc).
i.e my results may not be crazy after adding your patch and seeing an
improvement for non-rps case.
However, whatever your patch did - it did not help the rps case case:
call_function_single_interrupt() comes out higher in the profile,
and # of IPIs seems to have gone up (although i did not measure this, I
can see the interrupts/second went up by almost 50-60%)

> Jamal, did you use a single socket to serve all the clients?

Socket per detected cpu.

> BTW: completion_queue and output_queue in softnet_data both are LIFO
> queues. For completion_queue, FIFO is better, as the last used skb is
> more likely in cache, and should be used first. Since slab has always
> cache the last used memory at the head, we'd better free the skb in
> FIFO manner. For output_queue, FIFO is good for fairness among qdiscs.

I think it will depend on how many of those skbs are sitting in the
completion queue, cache warmth etc. LIFO is always safest, you have
higher probability of finding a cached skb infront.

cheers,
jamal