From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>, Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next PATCH V1 0/9] net: fragmentation performance scalability on NUMA/SMP systems
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:29:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1353943798.11754.233.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1353942950.30446.1772.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 07:15 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 15:42 +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2012-11-25 at 08:11 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2012-11-25 at 09:53 +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, for the default large 64k packets size, its just a "fake"
> > > > benchmark. And notice with my fixes, we are even faster than the
> > > > none-frag/single-UDP packet case... but its because we are getting a
> > > > GSO/GRO effect.
> > >
> > > Could you elaborate on this GSO/GRO effect ?
> >
> > On the big system, I saw none-frag UDP (1472 bytes) throughput of:
> > 7356.57 + 7351.78 + 7330.60 + 7269.26 = 29308.21 Mbit/s
> >
> > While with UDP fragments size 65507 bytes I saw:
> > 9228.75 + 9207.81 + 9615.83 + 9615.87 = 37668.26 Mbit/s
> >
> > Fragmented UDP is faster by:
> > 37668.26 - 29308.21 = 8360.05 Mbit/s
> >
> > The 65507 bytes UDP size is just a benchmark test, and have no real-life
> > relevance. As performance starts to drop (below none-frag/normal case)
> > when the frag size is decreased, to more realistic sizes...
>
> Yes, but I doubt GRO / GSO are the reason you get better performance.
> GRO doesnt aggregate UDP frames.
Oh, now I think I understand your question.
I don't think GRO is helping me. Its the same "effect" as GRO. As (I
think) that the reasm frag SKB will be a "bigger" SKB, which is passed
to the rest of the stack. Thus, less (but) bigger SKBs get the overhead
of the rest of the stack. It was actually Herbert that mentioned it to
me...
--Jesper
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-26 16:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-23 13:08 [RFC net-next PATCH V1 0/9] net: fragmentation performance scalability on NUMA/SMP systems Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2012-11-23 13:08 ` [RFC net-next PATCH V1 2/9] net: frag cache line adjust inet_frag_queue.net Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2012-11-23 13:08 ` [RFC net-next PATCH V1 4/9] net: frag helper functions for mem limit tracking Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2012-11-23 13:08 ` [RFC net-next PATCH V1 7/9] net: frag queue locking per hash bucket Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2012-11-27 9:07 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2012-11-27 15:00 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2012-11-23 13:08 ` [RFC net-next PATCH V1 8/9] net: increase frag queue hash size and cache-line Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2012-11-23 13:08 ` [RFC net-next PATCH V1 9/9] net: frag remove readers-writer lock (hack) Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2012-11-26 6:03 ` Stephen Hemminger
2012-11-26 9:18 ` Florian Westphal
[not found] ` <20121123130806.18764.41854.stgit@dragon>
2012-11-23 19:58 ` [RFC net-next PATCH V1 1/9] net: frag evictor, avoid killing warm frag queues Florian Westphal
2012-11-24 11:36 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2012-11-25 2:31 ` [RFC net-next PATCH V1 0/9] net: fragmentation performance scalability on NUMA/SMP systems Eric Dumazet
2012-11-25 8:53 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2012-11-25 16:11 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-11-26 14:42 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2012-11-26 15:15 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-11-26 15:29 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer [this message]
[not found] ` <20121123130826.18764.66507.stgit@dragon>
2012-11-26 2:54 ` [RFC net-next PATCH V1 5/9] net: frag per CPU mem limit and LRU list accounting Cong Wang
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=1353943798.11754.233.camel@localhost \
--to=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=amwang@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tgraf@suug.ch \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).