From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: Major network performance regression in 3.7 Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 18:22:13 -0800 Message-ID: <1357438933.1678.5223.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <20130105214958.GA19814@1wt.eu> <1357427926.1678.4771.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20130105232913.GQ16031@1wt.eu> <1357430523.1678.4901.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20130106005053.GS16031@1wt.eu> <1357435276.1678.5067.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20130106013027.GV16031@1wt.eu> <1357436430.1678.5111.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1357437086.1678.5135.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1357438591.1678.5205.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20130106021824.GW16031@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Willy Tarreau Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:44639 "EHLO mail-pa0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754959Ab3AFCWR (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:22:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20130106021824.GW16031@1wt.eu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 03:18 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 06:16:31PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 17:51 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 17:40 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 02:30 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ah interesting because these were some of the mm patches that I had > > > > > tried to revert. > > > > > > > > Hmm, or we should fix __skb_splice_bits() > > > > > > > > I'll send a patch. > > > > > > > > > > Could you try the following ? > > > > Or more exactly... > > The first one did not change a iota unfortunately. I'm about to > spot the commit causing the loopback regression. It's a few patches > before the first one you pointed. It's almost finished and I test > your patch below immediately after. I bet you are going to find commit 69b08f62e17439ee3d436faf0b9a7ca6fffb78db (net: use bigger pages in __netdev_alloc_frag ) Am I wrong ?