From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] udp: handle gro_receive only when necessary
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:47:29 +0100
Message-ID: <1513684049.2656.12.camel@redhat.com>
References: <20171218041107.30483-1-zhanglkk1990@163.com>
         <1513592788.4533.5.camel@redhat.com>
         <1f4bfef5.b4c7.16069879c26.Coremail.zhanglkk1990@163.com>
         <1513608330.8795.7.camel@redhat.com>
         <581a1e57.7029.1606e6f4d4f.Coremail.zhanglkk1990@163.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        zhangliping <zhangliping02@baidu.com>
To: zhangliping <zhanglkk1990@163.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58490 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751164AbdLSLrc (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 19 Dec 2017 06:47:32 -0500
In-Reply-To: <581a1e57.7029.1606e6f4d4f.Coremail.zhanglkk1990@163.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 19:01 +0800, zhangliping wrote:
> At 2017-12-18 22:45:30, "Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Understood, thanks. Still the time spent in 'udp4_lib_lookup2' looks
> > quite different/higher than what I observe in my tests. Are you using
> > x86_64? if not, do you see many cache misses in udp4_lib_lookup2?
> 
> Yes, x86_64. Here is the host's lscpu output info:
> Architecture:          x86_64
> CPU op-mode(s):        32-bit, 64-bit
> Byte Order:            Little Endian
> CPU(s):                12
> On-line CPU(s) list:   0-11
> Thread(s) per core:    1
> Core(s) per socket:    6
> CPU socket(s):         2
> NUMA node(s):          2
> Vendor ID:             GenuineIntel
> CPU family:            6
> Model:                 62
> Stepping:              4
> CPU MHz:               2095.074
> BogoMIPS:              4196.28
> Virtualization:        VT-x
> L1d cache:             32K
> L1i cache:             32K
> L2 cache:              256K
> L3 cache:              15360K
> NUMA node0 CPU(s):     0-5
> NUMA node1 CPU(s):     6-11
> 
> Btw, my guest OS is Centos 3.10.0-514.26.2.el7.x86_64, is this kernel
> too old to be tested?

Understood. Yes, such kernel is a bit too old. So the perf trace you
reported refer to the CentOS kernel? 

If you try a current vanilla kernel (or an upcoming rhel 7.5, for
shameless self promotion) you should see much better figures (and a
smaller differenct with your patch in)

Cheers,

Paolo