From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To: Craig Gallek <kraigatgoog@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] reuseport: compute the ehash only if needed
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 19:25:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1513103144.3294.15.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEfhGiwOrpkKJWXgdesFS=OUjOmr4BmUCRVFJy32G-N_g2+SGw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 12:44 -0500, Craig Gallek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
> > When a reuseport socket group is using a BPF filter to distribute
> > the packets among the sockets, we don't need to compute any hash
> > value, but the current reuseport_select_sock() requires the
> > caller to compute such hash in advance.
> >
> > This patch reworks reuseport_select_sock() to compute the hash value
> > only if needed - missing or failing BPF filter. Since different
> > hash functions have different argument types - ipv4 addresses vs ipv6
> > ones - to avoid over-complicate the interface, reuseport_select_sock()
> > is now a macro.
>
> Purely subjective, but I think a slightly more complicated function
> signature for reuseport_select_sock (and reuseport_select_sock6?)
> would look a little better than this macro. It would avoid needing to
> expose the reuseport_info struct and would keep the rcu semantics
> entirely within the function call (the fast-path memory access
> semantics here are already non-trivial...)
Thanks for the feedback.
I was in doubt about the macro, too. The downside of using explicit
functions is the very long argument list and the need of 2 separate
functions for ipv4 and ipv6.
> > Additionally, the sk_reuseport test is move inside reuseport_select_sock,
> > to avoid some code duplication.
> >
> > Overall this gives small but measurable performance improvement
> > under UDP flood while using SO_REUSEPORT + BPF.
>
> Exciting, do you have some specific numbers here? I'd be interested
> in knowing what kinds of loads you end up seeing improvements for.
this are the numbers I collected so far:
(ipv4)
socks nr vanilla(kpps) patched(kpps)
1 1747 1843
2 3109 3140
3 4480 4534
4 5796 5864
5 7063 7139
6 8168 8235
(ipv6)
socks nr vanilla(kpps) patched(kpps)
1 1433 1544
2 2537 2731
3 3622 3794
4 4689 4979
5 5738 6011
6 6671 6920
Cheers,
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-12 18:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-12 17:44 [RFC PATCH] reuseport: compute the ehash only if needed Craig Gallek
2017-12-12 18:25 ` Paolo Abeni [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-12-12 13:09 Paolo Abeni
2017-12-13 20:08 ` David Miller
2017-12-14 8:29 ` Paolo Abeni
2017-12-14 13:41 ` David Miller
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=1513103144.3294.15.camel@redhat.com \
--to=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kraigatgoog@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).