From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 net-next] net: move qdisc ingress filtering code
 where it belongs
Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 21:00:39 +0200
Message-ID: <20150510190039.GA4938@salvia>
References: <1431277170-4618-1-git-send-email-pablo@netfilter.org>
 <1431277170-4618-3-git-send-email-pablo@netfilter.org>
 <554F9946.9040707@plumgrid.com>
 <20150510175934.GA3799@salvia>
 <554F9DE8.3000507@plumgrid.com>
 <20150510182414.GA4198@salvia>
 <554FA7A5.5020400@plumgrid.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, jhs@mojatatu.com,
	daniel@iogearbox.net
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:50291 "EHLO mail.us.es"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751525AbbEJSzy (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 10 May 2015 14:55:54 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <554FA7A5.5020400@plumgrid.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 11:47:01AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 5/10/15 11:24 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> >On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 11:05:28AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >>On 5/10/15 10:59 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> >>>No, Daniel is *not* benchmarking the netif_received_core() with no
> >>>filtering at all.
> >>
> >>sorry, not true. We did benchmark all combinations. Daniel posted
> >>his, I'll send numbers from my box as well.
> >
> >Daniel said:
> >
> >"The extra indirection layers however, are not necessary for calling
> >into ingress qdisc. pktgen calling locally into netif_receive_skb()
> >with a dummy u32, single CPU result on a Supermicro X10SLM-F, Xeon
> >E3-1240: before ~21,1 Mpps, after patch ~22,9 Mpps."
> >
> >That explicitly refers to u32, hence qdisc ingress, so he did *not*
> >post any number of the use case I'm indicating.
> 
> I think I'm starting to understand your concern.
> You've read the patch in a way that it slows down netif_receive
> _without_ ingress qdisc?

No. What I said regarding my patchset I said:

"This patch improves performance of the super-critical ingress path by
moving the qdisc ingress code to sch_ingress, where this really
belongs."

The inlined code into the ingress core path seems to have an impact to
people that don't need this, even with the static key.