netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wang Jian <lark@linux.net.cn>
To: hadi@cyberus.ca
Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>, netdev <netdev@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] improvement on net/sched/cls_fw.c's hash function
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:18:53 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050405213023.0256.LARK@linux.net.cn> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1112705689.1088.209.camel@jzny.localdomain>

Hi jamal,


On 05 Apr 2005 08:54:49 -0400, jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca> wrote:

> 
> Why dont you run a quick test? Very easy to do in user space.
> Enter two sets of values using the two different approaches; yours and 
> the current way tc uses nfmark (incremental). And then apply the jenkins
> approach you had to see how well it looks like? I thinkw e know how it
> will look with current hash - but if you can show its not so bad in the
> case of jenkins as well it may be an acceptable approach,
> 

I am not saying that we must use jenkins. We may use a less expensive
hash function than jenkins, but better than & 0xFF.

Anyway, I have done userspace test for jhash. The following test is done
in a AMD Athlon 800MHz without other CPU load.


-- snip jhash_test.c --
typedef unsigned long u32;
typedef unsigned char u8;

#include <linux/jhash.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(void)
{
        u32 i;
        u32 h;

        for (i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
                h = jhash_1word(i, 0xF30A7129) & 0xFFL;
                // printf("h is %u\n", h);
        }
        return 0;
}
-- snip --

[root@qos ~]# gcc jhash_test.c 
[root@qos ~]# time ./a.out
0.77user 0.00system 0:00.77elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+81minor)pagefaults 0swaps


--snip simple_hash.c --
typedef unsigned long u32;
typedef unsigned char u8;

#include <stdlib.h>

int main(void)
{
        u32 i;
        u32 h;

        for (i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
                h = i & 0xFF;
                // printf("h is %u\n", h);
        }
        return 0;
}
-- snip --
[root@qos ~]# gcc simple_hash.c 
[root@qos ~]# time ./a.out
0.02user 0.00system 0:00.02elapsed 96%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+81minor)pagefaults 0swaps


The simple method is far better in performance. For extreme situation,
100Mbps ethernet has about 148800 pps for TCP. Replace 10000000 with
150000.

[root@qos ~]# time ./a.out 
0.01user 0.00system 0:00.01elapsed 83%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+81minor)pagefaults 0swaps

So use jhash is not big deal at 100Mbps.


For 1000Mbps ethernet, replace 10000000 with 1489000.

[root@qos ~]# time ./a.out 
0.11user 0.00system 0:00.11elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+81minor)pagefaults 0swaps

It's expected that a more hot CPU is used for GE, for example, 2.4GHz
CPU. So

0.11 / (2.4/0.8) = 0.04.

This is still not a big problem for a dedicated linux box for qos
control. We know that 500Mbps is already a bottleneck here.



-- 
  lark

  reply	other threads:[~2005-04-05 14:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-04-05  5:35 [PATCH] improvement on net/sched/cls_fw.c's hash function Wang Jian
2005-04-05  5:37 ` David S. Miller
2005-04-05  6:05   ` Wang Jian
2005-04-05 10:25     ` jamal
2005-04-05 10:38     ` Thomas Graf
2005-04-05 11:25       ` Wang Jian
2005-04-05 12:16         ` Thomas Graf
2005-04-05 12:39           ` Wang Jian
2005-04-05 12:52             ` Thomas Graf
2005-04-05 13:29               ` Wang Jian
2005-04-05 12:54             ` jamal
2005-04-05 14:18               ` Wang Jian [this message]
2005-04-05 16:11                 ` jamal
2005-04-06  6:45                   ` Wang Jian
2005-04-06 12:16                     ` jamal
2005-04-06 12:30                     ` Thomas Graf
2005-04-06 13:01                       ` Wang Jian
2005-04-06 13:34                       ` jamal
2005-04-06 13:45                         ` Thomas Graf
2005-04-06 14:10                           ` Thomas Graf
2005-04-06 18:15                             ` David S. Miller
2005-04-06 18:31                               ` Thomas Graf
2005-04-07  0:55                                 ` [RFC] dynamic hash table size & xor hash function for cls_fw Thomas Graf
2005-04-07 10:38                                   ` jamal
2005-04-07 10:47                                     ` Wang Jian
2005-04-07 10:51                                     ` Thomas Graf
2005-04-07 11:07                                       ` jamal
2005-04-07 13:09                                         ` [PATCH] [PKT_SCHED]: improve hashing performance of cls_fw Thomas Graf
2005-04-07 13:31                                           ` Wang Jian
2005-04-07 13:52                                             ` Thomas Graf
2005-04-07 14:03                                               ` Wang Jian
2005-04-06 13:36                       ` [PATCH] improvement on net/sched/cls_fw.c's hash function Eran Mann
2005-04-06 13:53                         ` Wang Jian

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=20050405213023.0256.LARK@linux.net.cn \
    --to=lark@linux.net.cn \
    --cc=hadi@cyberus.ca \
    --cc=netdev@oss.sgi.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).